Banning Things Versus Teaching People the Reason/s to Shun/Boycott Those Things
Prohibition has its limits; if people don't agree and won't obey bans, then enforcement ends up becoming expensive/difficult. Things can be "naturally" - based on common sense at least - boycotted (basically avoided) if people know they're bad. Things like smoking for instance.
In the case of operating systems, there's a very dumb discussion (still ongoing) about "age verification", which assumes that some technical means will help prevent kids from watching pornography and other things (for example, to name a classic, certain violent material). In the process, politicians will likely try to "ban" systems like GNU/Linux, not ban kids watching inadequate things. Why? Because kids always found ways to do so, even decades before the Web existed. Every adult person who is honest has been there, done that. In the 80s and 90s kids did get access to material they were not meant to have. Banning it would not work (banning sales to kids would not eliminate 'second hand' access) and prosecuting kids would be a terrible idea for lots of reasons.
So the bottom line is, try to better educate people and raise their moral standards; trying to ban everything under the Sun would not scale, nor would it accomplish the desirable behaviour. █
Image source: John V. A. Weaver Noticing the Bartender Who Has Been Thrown Out of Work by Prohibition