"Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do. This isn’t about turning the clock back. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around … what can be a very, very complex and quite dangerous world… The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause. The more we seek international solutions to this stuff — the UK and the US working together — the more that an international norm will set an industry norm."
It is hard to know what is more alarming: Burnham's ignorance of the US constitution and the limits it places on governmental action; or of the US debates throughout the 1990s on regulating online speech in which the US courts came down decisively against Congressional and Presidential efforts to restrict "obscenity":
As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion—just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.
Sorry to push my own work on this subject yet again; but why bother documenting the practical options open to governments if they make technology policy in the style of King Canute?