I don’t think it’s ever “ageism” in the normal sense to restrict children’s activities for their safety. But even if that’s the right term in some cases, it hinges on “if the thing does not need to be restricted”.

The burden is still to demonstrate that a restriction is wrong. If that can’t be demonstrated, then labeling it ageism is a purely emotional appeal.

I used a rhetorical device to demonstrate why restricting children’s activities is not simply ageism.

I don’t know how you can seriously come here and accuse me of engaging in bad faith when I’ve taken the time to make my viewpoint explicit multiple times in this thread now, including directly to you.

This is literally a “think of the children[‘s freedom]” appeal. You’re not arguing for or against the restriction on its merits.

In the US at least there’s also no such thing legally as age discrimination against minors so far as I’m aware.

Edit:

Let me frame this differently. “Ageism” is basically by definition bad, so applying the term “ageism” to a restriction is a an attempt to label the restriction bad without establishing that on its own merits.

If you try to provide a consistent definition of “ageism” that applies to restricting access to the internet but not restricting access to alcohol, you will most certainly have to resort to phrases like “reasonable restrictions” (if not, I’m very interested in your definition), which means that there’s still a need to establish what is reasonable. Applying the label “ageism” without establishing reasonableness is then a circular argument.