Why Oppose the Online Harm Inquiry
This is not about protecting children — it’s about expanding control. The Inquiry sets up vague definitions, closed hearings, and Big Tech partnerships that could justify mass censorship — especially of dissent and independent thought.
Here’s what the Inquiry really proposes, why it’s dangerous, and how it fits into a broader pattern of post-COVID digital authoritarianism.
What This Inquiry Really Does
- Uses undefined terms like “harmful content” and “online harm”: Opens the door to censor anything from political views to unpopular truths, especially under the excuse of youth protection.
- Begins with invitation-only hearings: Voices critical of government policy or censorship are unlikely to be invited — limiting transparency and accountability.
- Empowers government–corporate alliances: Hands over responsibility to Big Tech and state actors, sidelining parents, youth, educators, and local community autonomy.
- Fails to define rights protections: There are no guarantees for free expression, viewpoint diversity, or recourse against false flagging and takedowns.
- Ignores how past policies contributed to harm: The inquiry omits any scrutiny of COVID-era policies that forced youth online and caused digital addiction or isolation.
Why This Threatens Everyone
- Turns “safety” into a gateway for surveillance: Once speech is regulated “for protection,” it becomes easy to suppress dissenting ideas, satire, or political challenge.
- Centralises digital control under elite actors: Government and platforms get power to decide what is good or bad for youth — with no public checks.
- Sets up precedent for future censorship: Once this inquiry produces recommendations, they may be normalised across education, media, and public discourse.
- Undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi: No commitment to Māori digital sovereignty, cultural expression, or protection against colonial censorship patterns.
- Prepares young minds for obedience, not discernment: Youth are not taught to think critically — they are shielded from controversy under the guise of care.
The Bigger Pattern
This is not an isolated inquiry. It reflects a wider shift toward tech–state convergence, digital monitoring, and truth management — all under emotionally persuasive labels like “harm prevention” or “youth safety.”
During the COVID era, similar structures were used to silence testimony, restrict travel, and control online narratives. The public was told it was for their safety. Now the same script is being recycled — this time for children.
When definitions of harm are vague and the actors involved are unaccountable, freedom becomes optional and control becomes permanent.
If You Care About Freedom
This inquiry is not about protecting youth — it’s about licensing censorship. It does not empower children — it empowers institutions to limit what they see, hear, and say.
If you believe in teaching critical thinking, not banning ideas…
If you believe digital life should be community-led, not platform-policed…
If you believe in safeguarding freedom and honouring Te Tiriti in all areas of life…
Then now is the time to oppose this inquiry.
“If the power to define harm isn’t shared — it will always be abused.” — Ukes Baha