I noticed you didn't want to use the word government there and instead used "society". More often than not it's unelected bureaucrats doing the regulating, so it's not "society".
I think that more often than not the people pushing these decisions follow an idea of what most people would agree with.
For instance even if a regulator deeply believes eating babies is OK, they wouldn’t push a law in that direction, understanding nobody would back them up.
They would still be biased and try to limit punishment on baby eating, but there would be enough other people countering them.
In a way, if nobody resists or succesfuly rejects a proposal, I’d argue that proposal goes along what society accepts as valid, even if if asked in a poll a lot of people would disagree with it.
Calling it censorship makes it sound bad. But if you think about it, we have these restrictions of behaviours outside the digital world already, sometimes with options for parents to override it.
Where I live, alcohol can be consumed by children if given by their parents, but child pornography is illegal regardless of consent.
Predatory digital apps have a certain level of danger, and we need to figure out how much society should protect us from it.
If something because a problem for the whole society, parents won't have their say in it. For instance violent content would arguably fall in this bucket.
For this specific discussion, the question would be if children exposed to some of the most predatory apps have provably destructive behaviour (for instance if it affects their health such that they are not able to participate in regular social activities, or get depressed and because bring a high cost for the whole society etc.)
I'd see censoring at the society level or not depend on the answer to that question.