> Yes that's the entire point of this whole thread...

Lolno.

1) > An equally important skill is recognizing when those concerns are not genuinely held. Anyone who should know about "Parental Controls" and chooses "Papers Please!" or "Age Please!" is evil. Lawmakers and regulators pushing for this stuff are in this bucket. Anyone who -once introduced to the concept- claims to see no world in which "Parental Controls" can be beefed up and also claims that "Age Please!" or "Papers Please!" is the only viable option is -at minimum- unrecoverably stupid, and is probably also evil.

2) It's right and correct to both publicly call those people out as stupid and/or evil, and to call out those who are not acting with honest intent. As I mentioned earlier, one is under no obligation to be all niceys to people who are interested in tearing yet another chunk out of the vital organs of civic life.

> ...it shows you what's possible even if you're too cynical to believe anyone would ever implement it)

One could implement it. I've never disputed that. It will "accidentally" [0] be put into a system in a way that leaks the information it claims to protect by implementers that fundamentally disagree that the feature needs to exist. One only needs to look at the myriad and varied ways Internet advertising companies (and the users of their platforms) extract sensitive information on users to see that no amount of tech will protect information you enter into a system a company controls if that company gives zero shits about your privacy. The only way to prevent this information from leaking is for the systems involved to never have possessed it in the first place.

[0] ...or perhaps -because of incompetence- actually accidentally...