I’m a strong advocate for restriction and education over censorship when it comes to online content that younger people aren’t yet able to handle with their developing minds, spirits, and bodies. My personal preference will always be to enable free will and empower people with knowledge. I think this is a far better approach than permanently removing content from the web because it’s easy for censorship software, which is never perfect, to sweep up content that should not have been banned.

Let me tell you a story that shows the difference. Early in my spiritual journey, I was introduced to a church that operated on a system of absolute beliefs. I was told, “these are our beliefs which you must accept to be one of our members.” Questions were few and the answers were standard. This approach of rigid restriction eventually broke my trust, and I left to find a faith that would accept me as I was. When I found the Roman Catholic Church, my journey was a gradual education. I was first given a questionnaire to understand what I knew, and then I was taught the faith. I was always encouraged to ask questions, both during sessions and with my mentor. I was even given talks from speakers on topics like Mary and the final judgment. If I was not ready to learn about a certain topic, I was told so, but also given a time when I would be. This was a system of trust and education, not restriction and blind acceptance.

Now, let’s define the key terms I’ve been discussing in the context of adult-only online content.

First, censorship is the complete removal of content from the internet. When content is censored, it is no longer available for anyone to see.

Next, restriction is a way of preventing underage users from accessing said content. This can be done through an age gate, a paid membership, or software on a computer or router that requires permission to access the material.

Finally, education is the process of giving young people the tools to correctly deal with this type of content. It’s about teaching them how to understand and separate fiction from reality, and to make informed choices for themselves.

Why the Argument for Censorship is Flawed

The primary argument for censorship is simple: protection. People who advocate for censorship want to protect vulnerable people, especially children, from content that they see as dangerous, whether it’s psychologically damaging, illegal, or promoting harmful ideologies.

And while that goal is worthy, the method of censorship itself is deeply flawed.

First, censorship can never be a permanent solution. The internet is a global, decentralized network. As soon as one piece of content is taken down, another can be uploaded from anywhere in the world. An outright ban is like trying to stop a flood with a single sandbag. My preferred methods, on the other hand, are designed to last. Restriction, whether it’s through software or a paid membership, creates a gate that controls access. But most importantly, education equips people with the lifelong ability to navigate the online world, regardless of what’s out there.

Second, censorship often goes too far. No censorship software is perfect. They can’t tell the difference between a documentary on a sensitive topic and harmful content, leading to the accidental removal of valuable and educational material. This over-blocking is a common problem. My method of restriction and education is far more precise. It empowers a parent to choose what to restrict for their child, and more importantly, education builds a person’s critical thinking skills so they can make their own informed choices as adults.

Finally, and most critically, censorship removes free will. When content is completely removed, it robs people of the chance to learn how to deal with it. It creates the dangerous idea that someone else will always protect you from anything you find uncomfortable or offensive. My method, however, builds resilience. By providing the tools to separate reality from fiction, education teaches people to be self-reliant and responsible for their own navigation of the world.

This problem is already playing out in countries like the United Kingdom, where the Online Safety Act mandates platforms to remove legal content deemed “harmful to children.” While the intent is to protect young people, the law’s broad language has raised concerns that platforms will over-censor, removing valuable content out of fear of heavy fines. This is a real-world example of how censorship, even with good intentions, can stifle free expression and lead to unintended consequences.

Putting My Method into Practice: How Parents and Authorities Can Help

Now that we’ve defined the problem with censorship, let’s talk about how my preferred approach can be put into practice. The responsibility lies with two key groups: parents and authorities.

For Parents:

Parents are on the front lines, and they have the most direct impact on their child’s online experience.

Education

• Have open conversations: Don’t wait for your child to find something inappropriate. Proactively talk to them about what they see online. Ask them what content they enjoy, and discuss what makes something a trustworthy source of information.
• Teach digital literacy: Show them how to spot misinformation, sponsored content, and clickbait. Help them understand that what’s on the internet isn’t always real or true.
• Explain the “why”: When you restrict something, explain to your child why you are doing it. Tell them that you want to help them grow up with the tools they need to make good choices.

Restriction

• Use parental controls: Tools built into streaming services, gaming platforms, and devices can limit what a child can access.
• Set expectations: Establish clear rules about screen time, what sites are allowed, and when a child should come to you if they see something that makes them uncomfortable.
• Utilize network-level filtering: Many home internet routers allow parents to block entire categories of websites, providing a first line of defense against harmful content.

For Authorities:

Authorities—which includes governments, schools, and social media platforms—play a different but equally important role. They cannot educate every individual, but they can create systems that support and encourage education and restriction.

Education

• Promote digital literacy in schools: Curriculum should include classes on digital citizenship, media literacy, and online safety.
• Fund public awareness campaigns: Governments can fund programs that inform parents and children about the dangers and opportunities of the internet.

Restriction

• Mandate age-gating: Require websites with adult-only content to implement an effective age-verification system.
• Enforce laws against illegal content: While this sounds like censorship, it is a crucial distinction. Laws against things like child abuse material and extreme violence are not about moral judgment; they are about protecting people from illegal acts. This is a very different category than restricting a blog post or a political video. However, even these laws must be carefully crafted to avoid overreach. For example, Texas’s SB20, which criminalizes possession of AI-generated child abuse material, has been criticized for its vague language that could potentially be used to prosecute people for possessing or viewing animated content.

The internet is an ever-changing landscape, and we cannot protect young people by trying to build walls that will eventually fall down. The old methods of censorship are flawed, ineffective, and often do more harm than good. A better way forward is to empower the next generation. By combining smart, intentional restriction with a robust, lifelong education, we give them the tools to navigate the online world responsibly and to think for themselves. This approach builds resilience, promotes critical thinking, and ultimately prepares them for the world as it truly is.