In the realm of political discourse, few arguments are as emotionally charged — or as manipulatively wielded — as the call to "protect our children." At face value, it's an unassailable proposition; who would argue against the safety and well-being of society's most vulnerable members?
But the reality is far more sinister.
When politicians invoke the need to shield children from the dangers of the internet, they often do so as a pretext for introducing sweeping, authoritarian measures that curtail privacy, erode civil liberties, and fundamentally reshape the relationship between the state and the individual.
One of the most glaring examples of this is the push for mandatory age verification for accessing adult content online.
The rhetoric is always the same: we must ensure that children are not exposed to harmful material. However, the implementation of age verification schemes often involves intrusive measures that require individuals to provide personal information — such as government-issued ID or biometric data — before they can access certain websites.
In practice, this means that private companies or government agencies are collecting vast amounts of sensitive information about individuals' online habits. The risks are manifold. Data breaches are an ever-present threat, and even the most secure systems are not immune. Moreover, the aggregation of such data creates a surveillance apparatus that can easily be repurposed for more nefarious ends.
In practice, this means that private companies or government agencies are collecting vast amounts of sensitive information about individuals' online habits
These laws not only pose serious privacy concerns but are also becoming increasingly fashionable among lawmakers who wish to appear tough on social issues without considering the broader implications for the privacy rights of citizens.
The very people these laws are supposed to protect — minors — are often the ones who find ways to circumvent the restrictions, while adults are left navigating a digital landscape that feels more like a panopticon than a place of freedom. It’s also worth mentioning that preventing kids from accessing certain content should be the task of a parent, not of the state. What such legislations do is excusing parents from their job and forcing society to cope with parents’ lack of interest in their children’s lives.
If age verification schemes are a Trojan horse for authoritarianism, the European Union’s proposed "chat control" initiative is a full-frontal assault on digital privacy. Under the guise of combating child abuse, the EU is considering a plan that would require tech companies to scan all private messages for potentially illegal content.
The implications of this are chilling. Imagine a world where every text you send is monitored by an algorithm designed to detect suspicious activity.
Proponents argue that such measures are necessary to root out criminal behavior, but the reality is that these systems are prone to error and can easily be abused.
Innocent conversations could be flagged, leading to unwarranted investigations and the potential criminalisation of ordinary citizens. Worse still, the very existence of such a system normalises the idea that surveillance is a necessary and acceptable part of modern life.
In order to allegedly prevent child abuse, privacy will be abolished — and, don’t forget, child abuse happens offline, but legislators find it easy to just criminalise the end of the line while washing their hands of reality and creating a tool to censor and control.
The idea that the state — or even private corporations — could have access to the intimate details of our lives is antithetical to the principles of democracy and human rights and a step toward a dystopian future. It’s a direct attack on the presumption of innocence, replacing it with a culture of suspicion and control.
The fundamental problem with these initiatives is that they present a false dichotomy: that we must choose between protecting our children and preserving our freedoms. This is a dangerous and misleading narrative. It suggests that the only way to ensure the safety of minors is through increasingly draconian measures that strip away the very rights and liberties that define a free society.
But there are alternative approaches. Education, for instance, is a powerful tool that can equip young people with the knowledge and critical thinking skills they need to navigate the internet safely. Parental controls, privacy settings, and responsible content moderation are all effective ways to manage online risks without resorting to authoritarian tactics.
Moreover, we must recognize that the internet is a reflection of society at large. The dangers that exist online — whether they be exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, or exploitation — are not unique to the digital world. They are societal problems that require societal solutions. By focusing solely on restricting access and increasing surveillance, we are ignoring the root causes of these issues and, in the process, creating new problems that are far more insidious.
Every time politicians propose measures to "protect our children," we must scrutinise their true motives and the potential consequences of their actions. In many cases, these proposals are not about safety at all, but about control — control over information, control over individuals, and control over society. We must resist the temptation to accept these measures at face value. Instead, we should demand solutions that respect both the safety of our children and the privacy and freedoms of all citizens.
Raphael Tsavkko Garcia is a freelance journalist and editor, with a PhD in human rights, in Antwerp, published by Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Wired, MIT Tech Review, among other news outlets.
Raphael Tsavkko Garcia is a freelance journalist and editor, with a PhD in human rights, in Antwerp, published by Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Wired, MIT Tech Review, among other news outlets.