I've been reading some of the "think of the children" literature. It's a lot like you hear of "this" or "that" which might be bad and play it up. The document speaks in a primarily shrill paranoid tone.
Some of the language is quite alarming. When speaking of sexting among peers, participants are referred to as simultaneously "perpetrators" and "victims" (emotionally charged language). Someone can't simply be engaging in an activity considered inappropriate.
They talk of content in terms of contagions which inevitably lead to "harm" (a vague term which could mean something as simple as unpleasantness). This is not really true. It's also a very paranoid way to look at the world.
Online porn gets a mention, even though this is pretty moral panicky (1) (honestly, all of it is, but it's not as if we haven't had porn crop up multiple times as a moral panic over the decades).
Even auto-complete gets mentioned as an "evil feature"... There doesn't seem to be a lower bar as to what they're willing to include as an "evil feature".
Quite a few suggestions require somehow knowing someone is a minor... That requires collecting data... Unclear whether they're helpful, they look a lot like random ideas.
It implies that livestreams are commonly visible to millions of people. This might be true, if you're a large influencer. But, you know... We'd be lucky, if we got any (or barely any) watching a livestream, without a pre-established fanbase.
