This is binary thinking and is false. The law does do something by putting up an obstacle to seeing porn. Hundreds of thousands of children are seeing porn by accident, way before they are ready, not because they're horny little teenagers. Yes, those who are highly motivated will find it, but you should not be this absolute.

The cost of this law in privacy violation is not worth the benefit it brings to children. But it still does bring a benefit, and you're unlikely to convince anyone if you can't see where they're coming from on that.

I think their motivations do matter. In part because they're the motivations of the general public in support of this, so it is those opinions that need to be swayed.

The strategy is completely different if this came about due to payoffs by big tech versus if it has real grassroots support!

It is far more difficult. Campaign finance is far more restricted, and it's in the news if the regulator finds someone broke the rules.

The biggest problem is the revolving door, as it's hard to prove. That definitely still exists, but you can see by where politicians do end up after political life that most are not in such a scheme.

As in the US, direct money for votes schemes basically don't happen as they're too easy to detect and too obviously corrupt even to the morons in the party base. There have been some recent scandals about people being paid to give speeches on certain topics. Notably, these have all been right wing politicians, but the online safety act has cross-party support.