Part 2/11:
While her intentions may be to protect young Australians, critics argue that her perspective reveals a troubling misunderstanding of the role of parents and personal responsibility. By framing government intervention as the primary safeguard against content exposure, she appears to sideline the importance of parental guidance and individual agency. Detractors contend that such policies risk paternalism and could inadvertently restrict freedom, especially considering children's use of platforms like YouTube for educational purposes—activities that many parents find beneficial.