Like they wouldn't bring it in to combat "mis-information" i.e. viewpoints they don't like.

Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the Online Safety Act.

With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a worthless money pit?

Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can be criticised: ID on mobile phones… so probably they’d lock everybody into a duopoly.

Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody will push the button.

Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.

Yes? They can kill half Europe with a single nuclear power plant if they really want. They are safe only for accidents, and external sabotage. They are absolutely not for intentional internal fuck ups. The whole system is built on that most workers there don’t want that. The whole system is built on trust.

You're arguing that the installation of a literal surveillance apparatus should be tolerated because technology can almost always be used for evil.

No, I’m arguing that it can be used for good, and it shouldn’t be dismissed when it cannot be used for evil things by law, especially not because of future possible evil usage, because that’s true for everything. Btw, why do use the internet? It’s quite contradictory to argue about this here. And that is the case since almost its inception.

Everything can be used for bad or good, some things the balance is so bad they aren't worth considering.

There is no difference between changing a law more, than less. It can be done the same way, with a single vote. So the balance doesn't matter at all, especially that voters clearly don't make distinctions based on that.

What do you have to hide? Why are you against adding just a little more to the law to protect the children?