> it's so clearly a draconian slippery slope for invasive surveillance and choice restriction

It's a privacy preserving over 18 check.

Is it a "slope"? Sure, you can imagine an extension to the system that is "worse".

Is it "slippery"? This thing isn't draconian enough to be effective. It will be a minor speedbump that prevents exactly zero determined under-18's from accessing anything that they'd want to. So then the question is, does the government react by trying something more draconian, or does it give up?