Alcohol is a great comparison to access to the internet.

Firstly lets be honest to ourselves, who gives kids access to alcohol? It is the parents ultimately. You cannot freely access alcohol in public without a venue offering it, but at home a parent can choose if and how much alcohol their kids have access to. Typically kids who have alcohol in public had taken it from home. There are societal morals that rightfully we consider reckless depending on how much access you give your kids to alcohol.

Now replace the word alcohol with 'the internet' in the last paragraph. The internet is already moderated for kids, they cannot buy access to it, and it is the parents responsibility to manage that. Since when did this change to being the governments job to dictate this moral and its implementation.

Parents just need the right tools to properly moderate their kids access, some of us had this from our parents decades ago with software managing content and time on the internet, I doubt these tools disappeared. The government should be facilitating programs like this. The cost would be substantially less and entirely opt-in, as it should be.

I as a parent should be able to put my kids device into a parental mode that allows me to manage what they have access to and for how long, the same way the Nintendo Switch works. I should be able to control the content my kids sees, not the government. The government can help me enable this across industry without forcing the world into an authoritarian regime using the vile of keeping kids safe.

> If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, *have a screw loose, or are a child predator.*

Ad Hominem

> There is information and images that are developmentally harmful to children.

Yeah it's called "advertising."

> If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, have a screw loose, or are a child predator.

“Anyone who disagrees with me is either ignorant, insane, or evil.”

> If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, have a screw loose, or are a child predator.

This is not helpful, don't do it. GP likely has to suppress the urge to call you a stalinist.

GP comment made it clear that they are a free-internet absolutist. You can make no conclusions beyond that.

Absolutism is daft; attack that, if you must.

Except, of course, implementing age gates means that suddenly _everyone_ has to authenticate, not just kids. And maybe things like gambling shouldn’t be allowed altogether.

You can sling any names you like. I addressed the "safety" aspect. It's not only disingenuous it wouldn't matter if it's sincere. This position is non negotiable, and I say this as a parent myself. Your children's development is your responsibility, it is not your right to deprive others of their freedom due to your fear. I was lucky enough to have a library of real books as a child in my home, many if them "inappropriate" for children whatever that means. The 1990s unfiltered internet came next. I was most definitely more enriched than harmed. I'm frankly tired of this argument and I just won't accept it being repeated as truth, especially when its irrelevant to the core premise.