> Because the entire reason we are here is due to the fact that harms to kids are on the other end of the scale.

If that's a "fact", where is the proof? What harms are there that can only be addressed with age verification and not in any other way?

> Dismissing the harms [...]

This is a strawman you've created.

> Defending privacy effectively means plugging the root cause it is being encroached.

Defending privacy means defending privacy, not submitting to nefarious interests and well-meaning but misled followers.

> This is being articulated as a defense of privacy when it originates from social media harms to kids.

Social media can be dangerous to kids, I don't see anyone disputing that. The dispute is around the solution to this issue.