Shifts focus to free speech by reducing overreach, ensuring online platforms balance safety without stifling public discourse and innovation. Do not allow government overreach with the excuse of safety.
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Online Safety & Social Media |
Targeted child-safety duties
|
Minimal duties, free-speech priority
|
Party
The party of bold growth and unshackled freedom where ambition meets opportunity and every dream is a spark for the next fire.
Core pillars
Minister of National Defense · Age 55
Once a rising star in the business world turned political operator, Malin Larsson trades ideology for results, blending sharp analysis with an uncanny ability to rally allies and outmaneuver opponents on her way to the top.
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
For: 0 / 35 seats (0.0%)
Against: 18 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 17
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Better Fjordheim | 8 | No | ABF supports free expression and opposes unnecessary regulation, but targeted protections for children are a legitimate safeguard. Replacing them with only minimal duties goes further than necessary. Online freedom should not require abandoning reasonable protections for minors. |
| ASTER | 7 | No | This bill doesn't balance safety and free speech, it abandons the first to flatter the second. Reducing targeted child-safety duties to "minimal duties" strips away specific protections built for the people least able to protect themselves online, and calling that "overreach" only works if you treat what happens to real children on these platforms as an abstraction. ASTER doesn't see free expression and child safety as a trade where one has to lose. A platform can host open discourse and still carry a real legal duty to shield minors from targeted harm — those two things aren't in tension unless you've already decided the second one matters less. The bar for online freedom has to sit higher, not lower, when children are the ones who pay for getting it wrong. ASTER votes No. |
| Democratic Liberal Platform | 3 | No | The bar for social media freedom is higher when children suffer greatly from it, we are hence in favor of keeping strict restrictions. |
| Libertarian Alliance Proposer | 0 | Yes | No reason given |
| Movement For Socialism | 0 | Yes | We support this proposal |
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“We support this proposal”
“ABF supports free expression and opposes unnecessary regulation, but targeted protections for children are a legitimate safeguard. Replacing them with only minimal duties goes further than necessary. Online freedom should not require abandoning reasonable protections for minors.”
“This bill doesn't balance safety and free speech, it abandons the first to flatter the second. Reducing targeted child-safety duties to "minimal duties" strips away specific protections built for the people least able to protect themselves online, and calling that "overreach" only works if you treat what happens to real children on these platforms as an abstraction. ASTER doesn't see free expression and child safety as a trade where one has to lose. A platform can host open discourse and still carry a real legal duty to shield minors from targeted harm — those two things aren't in tension unless you've already decided the second one matters less. The bar for online freedom has to sit higher, not lower, when children are the ones who pay for getting it wrong. ASTER votes No.”
“The bar for social media freedom is higher when children suffer greatly from it, we are hence in favor of keeping strict restrictions.”