Apt username. I already have to deal with non-functional wifi because of frequency band restrictions. And instead of buying physical media (or streaming), I have to "pirate" content because of DRM.

Any hardware or software that disobeys the user is useless for the user. It just becomes a tool for power grabs.

Nothing in that description involves hardware or software disobeying the parent user. The parent has all the power. What's wrong with that?

It's fine if it's opt-in until the opt-in becomes opt-out and I get to use my old gear until it dies. That would still be fine with me except for the fact that my income and by extension wife and family depend on me using a computer. That would still be fine if somehow we could escape this system and still have food and shelter but that won't fly with the healthcare system we depend on.

I didn't see how one (admin) account setting a flag on another account could be anything but opt-in. It's really unclear to me what you're worried about, the whole world getting put onto child accounts or something? I don't think a law that bans the vast majority of online commerce would get any support, among other reasons.

I too think this is likely the only workable solution. My bias is the OS/ecosystem layer is the right place to handle access to the digital world.

However as digital access becomes more and more essential to doing anything in life, this makes the layer even more load bearing, so I wish to see a legal framework for privacy/security as well as appeals process for the painful edge cases where people get locked out for whatever reason. That problem is even harder.