I am sick of these "government bad" takes. They lack constructive suggestions, like your "sink it" nugget, they lack decent problem descriptions, as if anything after the sinking (likely private governance, aka feudalism) is immune to the ills of big-gov, and on top perpetuate reductivist arguments as if any kind of restrictions of freedom is by definition bad. This broad rejection without good reasons is borderline sociopathic.

People also wanted to smoke cigarettes but they got fierce opposition from their parents. That's what parents should do.

Maybe we should teach parents how to be parents instead of imposing draconian age checks (read: mass surveillance).

We are not past the point at all. Any democracy can ultimately decide on laws and regulation. Why would you wish to insinuate otherwise here? California could easily decide to not implement such laws, for instance.

That data leaks out is always a given. So, gather less data. Ideally none. But this is not a discussion about data. This is a discussion as to what state actors think they are allowed to do. It is an attack on private life of people. See the combined strike against VPNs.

I heard that lie about "sensible restrictions" so many times, now I am waiting for "sensible violence", "sensible beating to death" and so on. It is a false argument that "there will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions", what you can do is recognize that "no restrictions is an option".

It is like negotiating with a terrorist that wants to kill you and this is his starting position and then he wants to agree on some compromise, like seriously beating you. There is no negotiation.

No we aren't. Also you can put toothpaste in tubes or it wouldn't be in there. Hope that helps!

Unbound DNS if compiled with --with-libnghttp2 can listen for DoH and your Unbound/Pihole can forward to any destination you desire. This is what it looks like on my firewall:

    # https://doh-int.mydomain.net/dns-query
        interface: [ip of lan port]@443
        interface: [ip of wifi port]@443
        https-port: 443
        http-max-streams: 220
        tls-service-key: "/etc/unbound/keys.d/unbound_server.key"
        tls-service-pem: "/etc/unbound/keys.d/unbound_server.pem"

    ip route add blackhole "${IP}" 2>/dev/null

If the childs account is not able to gain admin privs then their ability to change settings can be disabled.

You describe a use case for you. That's fine.

Here we talk about use cases for EVERYONE. I don't see how your use case is fine for me, because I personally do not agree with it on any level at all whatsoever. You believe in restriction. I don't. There is no common ground here.

> It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7

Is this your job? At which age will you stop monitoring them?

> what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see

99%? Where do you get those numbers from?

Besides, what stuff anyway? Even then the issue isn't about your kids. It is about laws for EVERYONE.

Well, you can't.

Like no past generation could stop their kids.

You but them smartphones, tables, laptops, and internet access and then complain there is too much access?

If your kids are in the smart 1% who can bypass your authority, they will. Be proud. For the rest, we don't need a police atate

You could block the default DoH services for Firefox, I reckon.

> what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something like this?

Nothing. VPNs exist (including free ones), some of classmates will have unlocked devices, etc.

Next question?

only parents can decide for their own children, so you can do whatever you want for your own children