How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia...

▲

bigfatkitten 14 hours ago | parent [-]

This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...

▲

gruez 14 hours ago | parent [-]

That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.

▲

bigfatkitten 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My point is that this has been consistent with their policy for the last couple of decades, and that the recent round of scandals have nothing to do with it.

▲

scotty79 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out.

	▲	gruez 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"?