>"That's fine"

Glad we sorted that out. Barring that, I am not interested in what things you find to be a "good/bad look" for my participation in this conversation.

>"Children should not have easy access to addictive drugs, digital or pharmaceutical."

They should not. And luckily for you, for at least 2/3 things you said, neither do adults. We've already established a baseline belief as a society that those (legally) require permissive access from subject matter experts, so I don't see your point. My originating comment - or the one I linked - certainly doesn't advocate for minors to have more permissive access to those (or any) industries than an adult?

For your comments onwards, you could have saved yourself a lot of time in your reply by acknowledging what I said in GP:

>"There's levels to it, and I understand a child can have all the tooling in the world about how to deal with bad influences, and neglect its application solely due to naivety;"

You are right that exposure does not build agency alone - but I never claimed such; access to guidance and mentorship builds better decision-making and problem-solving for a child, and letting them practice agency and autonomy in their own lives allows them to see real-world use cases and applicability of those decision-making and problem-solving skills.

It's how parenting worked before this newest helicopter-lite style of parenting emerged, which seeks to declare as many hardships, trials and tribulations in life as a boogeyman in which a child CANNOT interact with, and pressures parents to coddle their child and build a zero-problem world around them - when that's not how the real world works. In doing so, a parent does not equip their child with the tools to appropriately carry themselves in a sometimes inappropriate world.