Half the laws people are complaining about are literally this although instead of a checkbox, it asks you for the birth date of a hypothetical child whose protection you want the device to match. And they don't use a government whitelist, but expect sites to self-declare and reserve the right to take action against sites that use misleading classification.
replyBrowsers already support safe browsing - a service that checks opened urls for fishing, so safety can be provided as a mode of such service (app store can check app url there). Also it doesn't really need to go through government, AFAIK DuckDuckGo and some DNS providers implement such feature independently.
replyNo. SafeBrowsing is a black list, and it doesn't provide the necessary level of safety. I propose to use the white list. Also, SafeBrowsing works only within a browser and my proposal is to implement child mode system-wide.
replyI like this approach but this is a power grab similar to the purchase of Tiktok...
replyWhere is the power grab? Everything is voluntary except for the requirement to support child mode.
replyProbably the government list. That part is a bad idea. It can be reactive instead, allow anyone to declare their site is child-safe and then punish false declarations.
reply