>>105653469
>So much fucking this. Just make it the law. Are they too evil or too incompetent to go this route? I seriously don't know. Maybe both.
I recall a US senator straight up admitting that the average parent is a borderline animal who wouldn't pass the Shopping Cart Test and incapable of enacting parental controls on anything. Maybe it was their excuse, but I wouldn't be surprised since parents are that fucking stupid when it comes to tech (mine were when I was growing up).
>>105653418
>The second most rational way: big tech implement child only versions of chrome/safari/edge for devices used by kids, automatically block browsing to anything +18, no exceptions, and make the blocking permanent, i.e. Timmy isn't going to pull a fast one by going to the settings and "turning it off."
Tech would refuse to implement this as they would no longer be able to get kids addicted to doom-scrolling. Kids shouldn't get smartphones, period. They should get flip phones with access to the most basic of apps.
If Timmy absolutely must have a smartphone because all the other yuppies in his prep school have them, it should be child-locked (basic apps only, with even the camera disabled) until he turns 18 and age verifies at a brick and mortar store that can unlock it.