I strongly believe that most would actually. All parents I've talked to have had issues with parenting their children's online activity. They know there are harmful things they want to prevent them from accessing but it is simply to hard to configure and set up existing tools for it. (Besides every single friend they have don't have any restrictions so it all seem pointless.)

I can also see also large support for uploading ID to various services when talking about kids, but when you re-frame the question to adults, most seems to really dislike the idea immensely.

Sure there will be children with access to unrestricted devices, just like we had kids with porn mags hidden in a forest somewhere back in the day, or how that one sketchy guy was buying alcohol, etc. But I think this is an acceptable level of risk for whatever harm people want to prevent.

Definitely makes it easier for parents. It also normalizes screen time limits for kids. When none of your kids' friends have screen time limits, it's harder to enforce. When at least there's a few of them, it's easier to get buy-in from your kids.

At that point it's on the parents. We can't stop parents from giving their kids alcohol or drugs either. (Not saying internet access is necessarily on the same level as that but you get the point.)

> Would the parents comply though?

Consider that even with something as divisive as covid lockdowns and vaccines, the overwhelming majority of people complied with government instructions.

There are a minority of people currently refusing to vaccinate their children properly, and their fucking around is being found out with measles outbreaks in various countries.

Why would this be different? Why wouldn't it be a minority of parents permitting their children to drink, to smoke, to use unrestricted computing resources?

Children are not the property of their parents- the government can and does take over parental responsibility.

The age restricted good is an unrestricted computer.