The problem I guess with cultural conservatives is that it seems like they never visit libertine websites in order to see what is going on there (behind paywalls). One can assume they avoid these sites because conservatives reject libertinism and therefore naturally stay away from them (in order to protect their own reputation). But the consequence of this avoidance is that some libertines are free to publish online stuff that would never have been allowed by society if responsible leaders had actually seen it instead of avoiding it.

Intelligence agencies (the police) are supposed to be responsible leaders, but they do little or nothing about very questionable online content published by some libertines. These authorities will maybe argue that they have more important things to focus on, like terrorism, militant activism and online extremism for example. Okay, but what if radicals or militant activists start to visit libertine websites to check what is happening there? Intelligence agencies must then follow them, and if the police notice anything illegal they must shut it down, and if they observe anything morally questionable they are ethically responsible if not informing lawmakers about it.

Intelligence agencies sometimes use libertine websites as honeytraps or "kompromat" to smear (conservative) people or pressure them to comply with their demands. But this means that intelligence agencies are not doing their legal or moral duty when not stopping this kind of libertine online content. In a way they are guilty of complicity, since they exploit these shady websites for political purposes instead of shutting them down.

In the age of deep fakes, kompromat can backfire or be ineffective (not trustworthy), because the individual who presents it in public thereby proves that he/she either works (indirectly) for an intelligence agency or presents info that can be a deep fake created by intelligence services that have secret deep fake technologies which can trick even the best civilian data forensic experts.

Kompromat based on a honeytrap implies that authorities don't actually think this honeytrap is criminal or morally questionable if they don't shut it down.

Intelligence agencies record everything that militant activists do online, so if these radicals visit libertine websites, maybe in order to recruit anti-surveillance activists there, the police will see the same online libertine content as the radicals observe on their own screens. If any of it happens to be criminal or morally questionable the police will lose credibility if not stopping it.

Police officers and intelligence officers claim that they represent "authority", so they have more to lose if their reputation gets tarnished. Militant activists can therefore deliberately bring them along and expose them to things which force them to act in order to protect their own reputation and credibility. Activists can also notify the police if they discover anything questionable. This increases the chance that some libertine websites are shut down.