The "warning label" comment comes from *political rhetoric* in an environment where people are sick of one or two companies controlling large platforms.

It's scientifically dubious, broad brushed (that is to say it is silly to suggest it is having negative mental health effects on such a large scale), and contested by various scholars. #FreeSpeech #Japan

"Child Fund Japan" used to be called something like the "Christian Child Welfare Foundation". I've covered this before. Crucially, they're not known for making particularly nuanced or accurate takes. #FreeSpeech #Japan

A year ago, "Child Fund Japan" deliberately misrepresented the results of a survey gauging attitudes towards online porn and presented that to their British colleagues. #FreeSpeech #Japan

"cases of bullying"
Generally speaking, it is one version of a social media platform that is available globally, so it is unlikely that any particular policy in any particular country has anything to do with that, much less the lack of the sorts previously mentioned.

Of course, there is a question as to what is being proposed?

Something which comes to mind is snooping on people's messages, which runs into privacy issues, issues of false positives, and the like, plus, it sounds unconstitutional. And it's questionable whether it would be effective. #FreeSpeech #Japan

"After all, social media providers are driven by profit. As I write this, X has relaxed its block policy"
I don't think X is representative of the typical company and I don't think this is a good representation of "profit based decisions". I suspect this is parroting talking points that someone else has provided.

I think they should have a working block function but this is reaching. #FreeSpeech #Japan

"13 to 16"
Yeah, no, we know #Japan does some things federally (this is referencing a 200 year old law) and some things regionally. This is misleading. Again, parroting. Also, the U.K. didn't have a prohibition on grooming until a few years ago.

"In fact, the word “grooming” in katakana is more commonly associated with animals — and in a very different context — instead of being discussed to raise awareness about the threat of online (and offline) predators."
Perhaps, you should run an awareness campaign about grooming, if you think that is a problem. You could even come up with novel terminology, if this one doesn't culturally fit.

"Line does not mandate age verification"
This ignores though the privacy issues (and potential chilling of expression) involved in age verification which has been discussed ad nauseum throughout the globe.

Namely, the collection of people's personal info. Any take that fails to engage with that prior discourse isn't really a take worth reading. #FreeSpeech #Japan

"while most adults are not up-to-speed with educating young people on how to protect themselves and their privacy and take care of their mental health"
A subject for schools to cover?

"no parental control mechanisms are available"
There are takes which are more sceptical of parental controls, but it probably wouldn't be a big deal, if they added some sort of parental control mechanism. #FreeSpeech #Japan

While I've seen folks who are more critical of this site, their articles are usually alright and informative, this one though seems to do next to no due diligence and just publishes claims from this weirdo group verbatim.

On a second glance, there appear to be more inaccuracies in there. It's a pretty bad article.