This is not to marginalise the issue of adults using the internet to trick children into abusive situations. Governments should prosecute people who prey on children, regardless of the mechanism used.

Also children should keep be anonymous on the internet.  Children should be taught this in school. So by being under the vigil eye of the parents at home, and anonymous in their online transactions, how could they be in danger?

In many democracies you have ways for the government to pass laws in a fast way, if needed for urgent reasons. But it's a bet. If the law does not pass the government comes out as much weaker. This is not an optimal situation, but it's far from perfect.

We should not forget that society can work in parallel. And sometimes very different opinions might have partial solutions where everybody agrees. A system where people can find those partial solutions, and start to implement them, can start to move a situation from very urgent to urgent. And give the space to everyone to discuss in a more calm way what should be done.

His position was essentially that as commander in chief he could not resort to non-violence. So it would have been better to make some slow progress toward a better world than to take the risky bet of non-violence.

Would Gandhi have done the same?

And if Gandhi could have done it, why can't someone else do it, too?