zlacker

'videos of violence' is quite wide: children shouldn't be watching videos of people being executed by gangs for example.

A lot of LGBT content is aimed at adults. I think we should always be clear when we are making statements like this because it causes great stress, a worked example:

People will claim that LGBT is under attack because this law potentially affects some LGBT spaces. These spaces will clearly be meant for 18+ audiences and so fall correctly under the law. Then other people see the first group of people, and from their point of view that group is complaining that their 18+ spaces are blocked from children. "Think of the children" drama ensues.

It is similar to Steam taking down incest/rape games and people claiming it was an action against LGBT creators. I don't think that's an argument that should ever be made for obvious reasons.

I don't think the government, even if it were under the Conservatives, have banning gay spaces on their current agenda.

>>flumpc+(OP)
Even if you think a lot of the content captured by the ban should be banned, I don't think age restriction mechanisms should be put on it. Talks around sexuality, the mere mention of certain crimes and unrest are being banned by social media companies, all because of this act. Companies seem to be acting out of caution.

I simply don't want to be forced to provide my ID / face to be able to read or access politically important news on social media. Some people would be happier if the bill was limited to only pornography: they likely don't think it has a major effect on UK politics.