The thing is, if you really care about your kid, that is your assumed threat model anyway. Sure, it's nice that it's somewhat mitigated by these rules, but in reality people don't assume the school zone is safe, they know there's still impaired drivers to account for, etc. Yeah, the railing is there, but you'll tell your kid not to lean on it.

Ok, take it the other way.

You want to marry someone? Make sure the government approves for your safety.

Want to make dinner? First you have to send the recipe to your local overseer with proof of your safe cooking credentials or you will have to pay heafty fines for noncompliance.

Want to make love, read a book, speak your mind, make a contract with someone, work the job you want? Sorry, you can't decide that yourself, first the politburo must approve it.

Sounds great!

None of those come with the downside of a permanently stored record of my conversations attached to ID.

> No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues.

Those are mostly there because of alcoholic drinks being served and the venue wants to create a certain atmosphere. There are plenty of parents that would take their kids there if they could.

The rest is not just there for kids but also for adults (or elderly).

There is a bunch of adults who would step in a hole in the ground or fall off a balcony.

The things you've listed are obviously reasonable, but the laws being proposed for digital parenting are very much not the same as those benign, locally-implemented guardrails. Take the recent Illinois law as an example: they're mandating all Internet-capable operating systems to broadcast the user's age bracket to all software that requests it. That effectively means you can't communicate online if you don't comply. The physical equivalent of that is making it illegal for you to see, hear, or talk at all, unless you utter the magic words "I am x years old". That is compelled speech, and it's deeply incompatible with the First Amendment.

While what you say seem intuitive, it is missing one point. Those locations probably are not recording exactly who is coming and going and what they are saying/doing.

That is where this become more than just gate keeping and becomes full on tracking.

>No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. No school zone speed limits, or protected crossings on streets near schools.

>No requirements for railings on public balconies, fencing around public pools, protective covers over drains or other holes in the ground.

>Parents/guardians can just supervise.

>Sounds great!

I know you're commenting in bad faith, but at the margin essentially nothing would change except the amount of whining from people of your bent when someone doesn't get punished enough.

The primary determinant of whether society engages in all those activities is not the government but the level of wealth to pay for it all.

The subject of Internet anonymity and children really presents a pest or cholera situation.

No, I don’t want to scan my face or my passport to use the Web. And also no, this glib, thought-terminating, “common sense” quip about “the parents are responsible” is also something to be rejected. We should try to both collectively protect kids and leave adults alone.

Leave it all to the corporations and you would have them prey on your children on every street corner, splash screen, TV menu, and ad board, with no “parental management” option anywhere. “But parents are responsible”, they would say.