I agree that measures like this, in which some character willfully finds practical ways to challenge a law, may faster lead to it being forcefully looked upon and probably amended. I also agree that age restriction software implementation may open the door to more tolerance regarding social control (under certain administrations). But as with most subjects that transcend borders and are multifaceted by nature with respect to any approach meant to deal with them, the age restriction digital regulation is prone to become a hard problem. There is the moral aspect that a child should be prevented from the worlds harm until the age of maturity because neurologically they lack the mechanisms that help them discern the world on their own, thus needing external support. There is the problem of the controlling entity, the enforcer, the authority, which is not impeccable. There is the problem of the speculator entity which hijacks the situation, creates certain narratives based on mass perception and may drive the process towards their own personal interests. There is the ideological perspective that only operates based on its underlying rules and filter every decision according to its ideological convictions. And this list is probably not exhaustive. So I think an appropriate angle to tackle this (or anything) is the balanced view. Which is hard. But from my current understanding: the law itself is well intended, just like a cop is put in the street from the good intention of protecting citizens, but just like the cop can turn bad... the entity enforcing the law can also. But the law itself.. is inherently a good point. A psychologically healthy point. A child should be .. somehow protected from situations in which, in lack of discerning, will almost always choose the bad option that is being offered... just for testing it, if not for anything else. So parents have rules, schools have rules, etc.. and no, they are not perfect. Nothing is. Should we give up on rules or the creation of new rules, just because they are not perfect? Well, in my opinion, that is precisely what a child would say, when presented with a new rule that does not entirely suite them. And that brings in the psychological argument. A mind that rejects a car seat belt simply because they don't want to be told what to do, and lack the perspective that it's simply a protective measure, which is ultimately imposed because of the lack of education characteristic of the individual rejecting it... is simply that.. an uneducated mind. Which in psychology means the individual has a mental age that is smaller than their biological age. So it boils down to education. But education starts when we are 0 days old. From parents, neighbors, schools and government... they all have to do their part. Each one. But when the parent does their job, the child complains... when the school does its job, the child and sometimes (more often I'd say) the parent complains... when the government tries to do its job, the parents, children and schools complain... so isn't this the perfect ouroboros. Now on top of this... the speculative entity comes and takes advantage of the situation. It manipulates narratives and entices the participant groups at each other's throats, steering the outcome for personal gain. This is all an entanglement that cannot be easily solved. It is human nature at its best. The perfect paradigm does not exist. So I guess the answer would be... what lesson can we gain out of this... (and this is with respect to every one's own perspective). I for one would welcome initiatives that try to protect, steer and show a righteous path.. even if the initiative is distorted by exterior forces, and try to work with it, iterate on it and implement it as best we can... as opposed to no action at all out of fear that the same exterior forces will act against us.