I never wrote something like this, I didn't discuss the implementation mechanism. The parent said the most important thing is not the children but some rights that in a few years are not gonna mean anything the way we go. I think it's the other way around.
I also think your idea of rights may be skewed. It is your right to not give a name and address to a website. If a website requires it, then just skip it. If you cannot skip a website, then you've already lost your freedom.
They're right that it's not an important question. It's obvious to most people now that children should be kept off social media, that's why it's not a question worth discussing, it's already settled. The arguments are about how to do that without also implementing mass surveillance.