What worries me is that this is at odds with Tencent's revenue model. How likely it is it that this was planned all along? Would it be possible that it's just the first step (nobody would argue about "protecting" children) to more invasive surveillance?
Wait, what? Are you implying that anyone would use concern for children as a Trojan horse to… yea just kidding… nothing new under the sun.
My favorite triple fallacy is “We must do something, for the children, even if it just saves one life!”. Where can only consider an action and inaction or other action can’t possibly be right, if it’s for children it must be righteous, and all costs are outweighed by one precious life even though the effect could be greater elsewhere - usually without infringing on people’s rights. This is the plea of the scoundrel that can not win an argument on fact or merit.
