> where seeing the user's browser history gives the supervisor information about what the user has been reading and they initiate a conversation about it.
Surveillance has a chilling effect and parent-child surveillance is no different.
If I had to do this, I would have just avoided the internet as much as possible. I suspect most kids beyond age 9/10 are roughly the same.
I would never have learned to program, never have started reading HN, never have browsed Wikipedia except for specific queries. I would never have acquired the information or communication and technical skills I currently possess. I'd be a completely different and vastly inferior person looking at a much less interesting future.
> It doesn't have to lead to blocking and restriction
"Monitor and supervise" is orders of magnitude worse than content filtering. This approach forces children to block themselves from having any sort of individual experience. If your child is even slightly introverted and is old enough not to not want to share every second with you, "monitor and supervise internet activity" is equal to "learn about and engage with the world around you as little as possible." It sends a message that by default, information is bad - any time you do seek information, you know you'll have to justify your curiosity. This doesn't just apply to objectionable content, it applies to everything.
I was happy to show my parents my finished projects and even wrote a few specifically for family. If I were getting interrogated, incompetently, about every intermediate step ("Why did you install django-south? What's a database? What's a schema? What's a query? What's a function? Oh, is that like a ___? No, mom, go away.") I would have just watched mindless TV instead.
Could you imagine knowing that you will have to discuss every link you follow and every Google search you enter with anyone, let alone your parents? That's horrifying.