It's not exactly that, the GP isn't claiming something the parent didn't say, they're just treating the example as the whole point. They act as if attacking the example invalidates the whole argument, when the point clearly stands and it's trivial to just find a better example.
Yeah it would be nice if there were a more specific word, but I think this still qualifies as a straw-man. It misrepresents the argument as a whole by acting as if refuting the "your kid" example refutes it completely.
It’s not exactly that either but it’s close to sealioning.
On the Netflix app it takes maybe 3 seconds to change profiles. Does it work differently with their games?
No idea. But if you let your kid use your profile to play, how are YOU going to enjoy World of Goo?
You're allowed up to 5 profiles. Why does this line of technicality even matter?
Because of the absurdity of offering kids games, but disallowing them from kids profiles.
This is most likely lawyer CYA, rather than any real attempt to stop kids from playing games. Is it absurd? Yes. Is anyone going to have any issues with it? No.
Is world of goo a kids game? I mean, it's appropriate for kids, but it doesn't seem to target them particularly. This adult enjoys it.