Nothing to do with street design - most suburbs have a park a safe walk near any house. That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design.
Some state legislatures are pushing back against this. Utah passed a law in 2018 which amends the definition of neglect to exclude this kind of thing.
https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html
(c) "Neglect" does not include:
[...]
(iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including:
[...]
(B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities;
In short the original post was subtly but very opposed to those very laws you are looking at.
Mind you there is nothing about OS level age verification that stops any of the above - which is why I'm against it.
But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws.
Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)
there's a general issue with rise in protectionism
However, the ending though, really feels like they're one step away from anti-vax, anti-education, and pro-hate pro-bigotry.
This case really feels like an over-reach. But to condemn the entire system because they have an interest in making sure the country functions and sets minimum standards of life and care is not a "bad thing". The government represents the collective decision-making of millions, hundreds-of-millions of people.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water because one cop (in rural Georgia of all places) over-reacted.
I'm pretty sure most kids older than 12 do have access to kitchen knives. And actively use them too.
I generally agree with your point. But at the same time access to the internet resouces and to gun or a chaisaw is not the same.
I have no problem securing a few items if my home, but I have no control over whatever is available on the net.
Sure, I can write some firewall rules or create "kid's account" on a streaming platform, but I can do this for every single known service, chat, IM group etc.
One way to traumatize 4-year old, I'd say an effective one.
There was one documentary series that apparently appropriate for 7+ and had "motherfucker" within the first 30 seconds of one episode.
I don't know which parallel reality they're from where that is an appropriate word for a 7 year old to learn.
Defines most fathers. Then again, I sincerely say thank you to many "insults".
True, and it's the parents responsibility to ensure that children won't injure themselves with the knives, or take them out or to school or whatever.
In this case, it is the data from the website, not the electronic device itself, that is seen as the item being transacted and regulated by age gates, no? The attempts to actually regulate it do feed back into changes on the electronic device, but the real cause of concern (per the protect the kids argument, if that is the real reason is debatable) is a company providing data directly to a child that parents find objectionable. That transaction doesn't have a parent directly involved currently.
Controlling the device itself and saying free game if a parent has allowed them access is a bit like saying that if a parent has allowed a kid to get to the store, there should be no further restrictions on what they can buy, including any of the above three items.
Is this a thing?
My 10yo has used all three of those things. If there were some legislation requiring they be "secured" before my son could be in my presence, obviously I'd oppose it, along with every other reasonable parent.