Add a few other misdirections:

Ignoring population growth when stating a rise in a population based metric.

Ignoring inflation when stating an absolute rise in price/cost of something.

Ignoring demographic distribution when highlighting gender/racial/religious bias (which may be completely unrelated to a selection bias).

And in the case you mention, I'd hypothesise that 'children' includes the teen age group which may well be highly motivated to fuel the supply of proscribed content.

Did you know that a worringly high proportion of women, 5 in 10, are of below average intelligence?

I think the big "mis-direction here is to create the idea that porn sites are trying to "lure" children to their porn site. Simply not true. Children do not spend dollars and draw too much "heat". That is why many of them have icons of filter companies on their site. They are not selling filters they are making a statement for "self protection.

I think the article is "mis-overestimating" the urgency of the problem.

What ever happened to Tipper Gore ?