It's funny because the same "perfect is the enemy of good" argument is used both to criticize age verification in the first place (why bother if it isn't perfect) but then also to dismiss proprosals to implement it better (why bother if they don't perfectly fix the problem).

No. It's mostly that the proposed age verification schemes have fundamental problems that disqualify them from being considered "good" and none of the "better" implementations fix those problems at all.

The problem is that it isn't even good. It falls squarely in the realm of "we must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it."