"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That isnt what I said. What I said is that children mustn't be allowed to some audiences the same way they aren't allowed in bars, porn movies or making legally binding decisions in corporate boardrooms.

> What I said is [...]

You actually didn't say that, you just said free speech isn't applicable when it comes to children, and left us guessing about how you might want that to be implemented :).

I'm glad you're not advocating for the end of free speech, however.

Of course not. I even against any restrictions on hate and harassing speech. Not that I like it. It is just I think that censorship in any form is worse than any speech it may be trying to censor. So choosing lesser evil out of 2.

note: Censorship above is in the sense of making content decisions for capable adults. Children isnt capable adults.

The post says "age restriction in the metadata" right there. So yes, they did say that, and you didn't need to guess.