Ok so there is an increase in inappropriate personal interactions between children and other people, so why not argue for things which will address that?
Good to see you (finally) conceding the bleeding obvious.
Now you have to think, and recognise that voltsandjolts is arguing for some specific things "which will address that".
I never came out in disagreement with having safe spaces for children, and have tried to take a centred/balanced position against the extremist(s) here. voltsandjolts is starting from some reasonable position/point and extrapolating/stretching it out to insanity, without coherent explanations, a consistent and clear position, or anything more than emotion. More importantly the "problem" is not being addressed by their proposed "solution", unless you redefine problem to be some nebulous THINK OF THE CHILDREN that no-one else can question or ask for specifics of. Troll arguments are troll arguments, and deserve to be pointed out for the smoke and mirrors they are.
Censoring static content and limiting access to information is not doing anything to address that.
Static-vs-dynamic content is an irrelevant red herring.
We all agree that limiting access to information has significant problems. The question is where to strike the balance in the grey areas.
You appear to not be interested in discussing balance, but prefer to see things in black and white.
I keep pushing back with constructive questions, if broad censorship is the answer then what is the question/problem that it is trying to solve? Blocking/censoring/restricting static content (one of the things the bill proposes) is nothing to do with the given example of possible harms from unsupervised/uncontrolled personal communications. Such harms equally exist outside the internet if children are given phones without supervision/controls over who they communicate with. Try and put forward a coherent argument for why broad internet controls are necessary beyond THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Perhaps age controls for person to person communications could be argued for, but that doesn't mean it has to come with all the other stuff being proposed. This is a classic political move of grouping together a whole bunch of things which are poorly connected and divisive, so that anyone raising objections to specific parts is shut down by the opposition saying "how can you stand in the way of the obvious benefits of the bill" which I have not done. Limiting access online to material which children can view in books is one example of the problems this law is proposing. The simpler one I'll keep coming back to:
if children are the group which are being harmed, why should the entire internet (most of which is not under the jurisdiction of the UK) change the way it operates? that will have costs and implications beyond the people it is trying to protect. A very simple alternative would be to restrict what children can reach from their point of access, mandate children have "safe" connections to the internet that flow through appropriate controls. Why is that so unpalatable to you or others?
And no, children bypassing controls is not a counter argument to that, as no matter where the control is implemented children will try to find ways around it. I'd argue a child "safe" choke point for access would be far more reliable and effective than relying on every website to individually co-operate.
Then you get to subtleties like "children" are not a homogenous group, treating them all the same does not work in legislation. Example being child car seat laws which required anyone under the age XX to be in a child seat and/or rear seat of a car, regardless of how large they were.