Who Decides What’s a ‘Rabbit Hole’? Canavan Slams YouTube Ban for Kids

Australian Senator Matt Canavan has blasted eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant for recommending YouTube be added to a proposed social media ban for children under 16 — not due to explicit content or security threats, but because of so-called “rabbit holes.”

Inman Grant, who heads the government’s online safety office, claimed that YouTube’s algorithms—designed for user engagement—are too persuasive for young minds to resist. In her own words, the platform has “mastered persuasive design” and uses “opaque algorithms” to pull children into spirals of content they are “powerless to fight against.”

But Senator Canavan isn’t buying it.

“The government claims that it is banning kids from YouTube because it drives kids ‘down rabbit holes,’” Canavan posted on X. “Why does our government think it is their job to decide what people watch and listen to? Who exactly decides what is a ‘rabbit hole’? The Government should never be given such power in a free country.”

“This is why I voted against the social media ban and I will continue to fight against this flagrant restriction on the free rights of young Australians,” he added.

Canavan’s remarks touch on a growing concern right across the Western world: government intrusion into the private and familial spheres under the guise of safety. What began as parental guidance has quickly escalated into bureaucratic control, with unelected officials deciding what content is deemed appropriate for children, not parents.

And it’s not just the eSafety Commissioner pushing this intrusive legislation. It’s being pushed by both state and federal politicians—including the so-called opposition. Even Opposition Leader Sussan Ley condescendingly declared, “parents need government.”

Critics of the ban have rightly warned that such policies chip away at parental authority, setting a dangerous precedent. If Canberra can decide what your child watches on YouTube, what’s to stop it from dictating what they eat, read, or even how late they can stay out?

This is not just a slippery slope; it’s a headfirst leap into soft totalitarianism. Governments increasingly inject themselves into domains traditionally governed by the family, the church, and the individual conscience. What we’re witnessing is a power grab dressed up in safety rhetoric.

That’s usually how these sorts of things are packaged. You care about children, don’t you? Then why would you oppose this law? You care about their health, right? Then why would you oppose legislation requiring all children to join local sporting clubs? Why would you oppose a law prohibiting their access to junk foods? Don’t you care about our kids? As Albert Camus put it, “The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants.”

But behind the feigned concern is a disturbing admission: These bureaucratic elites genuinely believe they know better than parents.

While it’s important for parents to shield their children from the genuine dangers of social media, it’s just as essential to guard them against the ever-expanding reach of state control. The government can and should raise awareness, offer guidance, and support parents, but the moment it appoints itself as co-parent, it has crossed a line.

When bureaucrats begin making personal decisions on behalf of families, liberty gives way to state paternalism, and freedom is replaced by force. And that’s just as much a danger as anything they’ll see online. It’s the parents’ responsibility to protect their kids from both.