Nah. Parental Controls are baked into every major consumer OS. If government cared about giving guardians the tools needed to care for the vulnerable ones they're responsible for, they'd require those parental controls to be beefed up [0] and that it be a requirement that online services and both local and remote software be required to honor the restrictions required by those Parental Controls.
Instead, what we get proposed is a system that cares very much about how old you are, and not one bit about the things that one's guardian understands one needs to be protected from. This system will work for some under-eighteens, but it will fail for many others, as well as every single dementia-damaged elder or brain-damaged/developmentally-stunted adult.
What's being proposed is absolutely not about protecting people... if it were, the mandate would be to beef up the existing fully-anonymous systems, rather than requiring identifying information from users.
[0] ...I mention this because I often hear in Internet discussion that these controls are insufficient, not because I have personal knowledge that they're inadequate.
Nope.
If you want the real reason, I'll provide a hint: it aligns with the underlying goal of DOGE.
Even the parental controls that are there are a train wreck. Our kid has an iPhone and the parental controls have all kinds of weird issues like, you give them 15 minutes of WhatsApp daily. First time on a day they start WhatsApp it says that all their time is up. Or suddenly they cannot run an application that was permitted by a parent. Then you uninstall and install the app again and suddenly it works.
It is unusable.
There web is also a huge hole in all of this. A lot of services you can also use as a website. A whitelist is too limiting and a blacklist is a daily task to maintain (and would require spying on your kid).
I also prefer to avoid age attestation altogether, but I am also not sure what the solution is. I think many people do not realize how much social pressure there is to use certain apps/games and how bad parental controls are. Yes, we say "no" to a lot of things, but you cannot say "no" to everything. Missing certain cultural touchstones (certain TV shows, certain games) makes your child an outsider.
As I said:
If government cared about giving guardians the tools needed to care for the vulnerable ones they're responsible for, they'd require those parental controls to be beefed up...
and as I went on to say:
...and that it be a requirement that online services and both local and remote software be required to honor the restrictions required by those Parental Controls.
Parental controls aren't baked in, they're bolted on and half-assed. One of them I've noticed over the years... I can't disallow Plex except at the app level (outside of Plex entirely). I can't easily give access to the educational libraries, but disallow it to the entertainment libraries. There are a million little anecdotes like that, because no one gives a shit about the problem.
Many parents, I think, are left with all-or-nothing choices. And it's not long before the reddit crowd starts insinuating that the reason your kid doesn't have a phone is so they can't call for help... from you.
It's a big clusterfuck.
I mean, parents, are -far and away- the most likely folks to abuse a kid, followed by friends of the family and close relatives. Stranger Danger was always fake, and teaching kids to be afraid of every adult who's not a family member is -and continues to be- a fantastic way to perpetuate child abuse.
But. Internet trolls are gonna troll and are best disregarded. If those folks seriously live in an area where an abused kid can never physically go to a teacher or other responsible adult for assistance, I'd recommend that they get the fuck out of whatever hellhole they're living in.
Ending section 230 might be a good start. Make platforms responsible for the damages done by whatever they distribute.