The repeal camp turned a rights question into a warning about state power, and Yes won by eight points. The result was a narrow endorsement of repeal, but the language around it was more forceful than triumphant: voters described an Act that threatens expression and privacy while failing to solve the problems it claims to address.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case called it “government regulation and surveillance packaged up”, with parents, rather than the state, cast as the proper guardians of children online. Other Yes voices said “It is being misused”, that it forces users to hand data to big technology companies, and that it is intrusive, unworkable, not robust enough, or simply “another way of enabling the silencing of different views”. One voter reached further, alleging a route to Digital ID, state monitoring and a central-bank digital currency; another preferred courts and fines for illegal activity.
The No side did not defend the Act as finished legislation so much as necessary infrastructure. Its clearest formulation was “The Act needs reform not repeal”: without it, voters warned, “Big Tech companies operate without accountability”, while children and adults remain exposed to addictive algorithms, self-harm material, sexual content, violence, gambling and bullying. They also called for tighter online security and age-based access, arguing that threatening or abusive posts should be treated with the seriousness of threatening letters; the two sides were often speaking past each other, one seeing censorship by the state and the other impunity for platforms.
That tension places the vote inside the live argument over how to reconcile child protection with free expression, privacy and encryption. But the ranking of the arguments matters: the chamber gave its strongest respect to the case against the Act, even as the No side’s practical objection — that it needs changing rather than abolishing — carried the ballot.
The verdict was a rejection of the Act’s present shape, not a settled agreement on what should replace it.
15 Opinions
It’s just censorship with a PR message of protecting children.
I'm saying yes only because the current measures are intrusive and unworkable in practice & I suspect an ulterior motive. They need to find another way.
This is not just about differences of opinion, it's about offensive, "not age appropriate", bullying, unacceptable posting on Social Media. It seems that some do so, and enjoy doing it to upset others. Police take written threatening letters seriously, the same needs to be seen happening on the internet. Being respectful and polite does cost anything.
It’s just another way of enabling the silencing of different views. Freedom of speech must be protected. I disagree with lots of views I read on here but would not want them censored.
If any illegal activity takes place online use courts and issues non appeal able costs fines etc. Would soon stop !
It is being misused, as the Free Speech Union said it would. It certainly needs revision.
We should be tightening security on line for young people. Everyone should have log on details provided by the state for identification only if criminal activity is happening or the person is under 21. At 14 what you can see starts increasing with full access at 21.
It was only to obtain control for the State to support Digital ID, State monitoring & CBDC. All part of UN Agenda 2030. Repeal with extreme prejudice & prosecute those MPs & Civil Servants involved.
More and more children (and adults) are being damaged by things they see online. We know that voracious capitalism will exploit anything that makes them money, including sexual content, violence and gambling. all these have exploitative infrastructure and damage consumers. We need protection and controls. Girl children particularly are already being hurt by boys acting out violence and sexual behaviours they have seen online. We need more control, not less
This act does nothing to reign in big tech. In fact, it forces us to hand over our data to them.