It always starts with “for the children.”
And it always ends somewhere very different.
Late last month in San Francisco, California’s unelected “first partner,” Jennifer Siebel Newsom, took the stage at the Common Sense Summit on Kids and Families and said the quiet part out loud: the government wants tech companies to step in and stop boys from becoming… Republican-curious.
Yes, really.
When “Good” Means Government-Approved Thinking
Siebel Newsom framed it as harmless concern—boys drifting right online, influenced by figures like Andrew Tate.
But listen closely to what she actually said.
This isn’t about one influencer. It’s about “very dangerous and limiting narratives” around masculinity and femininity. It’s about reshaping what boys and girls are allowed to think, believe, and question.
And most tellingly, it’s about forcing tech platforms to become “a force for good.”
Whose definition of good?
Not yours.
Not parents’.
Not even the marketplace of ideas.
Theirs.
The Real Goal: Institutionalizing Ideology
The most revealing moment wasn’t about Tate. It was this:
“We’re trying to institutionalize our values so that they carry on beyond our term.”
That’s not policy. That’s ambition.
That’s not about safety. That’s about permanence.
“Institutionalizing values” is another way of saying: locking in one worldview and making it the default—whether you agree or not.
And when government leans on tech companies to enforce that worldview, you don’t have a culture anymore.
You have a filter.
From “Concern” to Control
We’ve seen this pattern before.
Step 1: Identify a “harmful influence”
Step 2: Frame it as a public safety issue
Step 3: Pressure platforms to “do something”
Step 4: Expand the definition of “harm”
Today it’s Andrew Tate.
Tomorrow it’s:
- Traditional masculinity
- Conservative viewpoints
- Religious beliefs
- Anyone questioning progressive orthodoxy
Because once you accept that certain ideas are “too dangerous” to be seen, the list never shrinks. It only grows.
Parents Are No Longer the Authority
There’s another layer here that should bother anyone paying attention.
Siebel Newsom described her own son—raised in what she called a “very progressive household”—starting to ask questions after being exposed to content online.
That’s not a crisis.
That’s called thinking.
But instead of engaging, debating, or parenting… the solution on the table is to reshape the entire digital environment so those questions never arise in the first place.
That’s not guidance.
That’s preemption.
The Slippery Slope Isn’t a Theory
We’re constantly told the “slippery slope” is a myth.
Until it isn’t.
Policies that begin narrowly—“just to stop harmful content”—inevitably expand. Definitions stretch. Enforcement tightens. Dissent becomes suspect.
And before long, what was once debate becomes de-platforming, then de-legitimizing, then de facto censorship.
Not through laws alone—but through pressure, partnerships, and “guidelines” enforced behind the scenes.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about California.
It’s about a growing belief among political elites that:
- Ideas can be engineered
- Culture can be managed
- And dissent can be minimized for the “greater good”
When leaders start talking about “institutionalizing values,” they’re not describing democracy.
They’re describing control.