Comment by belorn

Children often lack experience and education to prevent harm, as that is one of the distinguishing aspect between adults and children. We also know from biology that children are more prone to poor impulse control. Children in general are dependent on an adult for safety, and children agency is occasionally removed in favor of security. Auto-lock-on-drive doors is a prime example of this. The adult driver is also liable for their passenger, especially children, so they have multiple incentives to ensure good security.

Treating children as children is fine and expected. Treating adults as children is not. Protecting children from disinformation, under the assumption that they lack the experience, education, impulse control, and expectation to handle information security themselves is fine. The government can also be an acceptable party to define this for children, even if some parents will object to not carry that role. An alternative could also be to make the parent liable if they fail in their role to protect their children from information harm.

Going back to auto-lock-on-drive doors, giving the government remote control of the car doors with no override, including the driver door, is unlikely to be acceptable to the adult driver who own the car.