I don't like this requirement at all but this is a very weak argument. Anecdotal experience shouldn't yield any conclusions.

Yes, but where's the real, proper evidence that shows that watching age restricted youtube videos is detrimental to children? I think unsupervised access to age restricted parts of youtube may well be detrimental too.

I feel like most of these changes are there only because troubled parents feel like they're powerless to control their children.

Oh absolutely. Here's an hypothesis: turbo-consumerist videos targeted at children are far more harmful that much of the "age restricted" content of nudity and profanity.

I just mean we should be careful and work in an evidence-based way rather than a moral panic-based way or a "I turned out fine"-based way (this latter, a common defense worldwide of child beating for instance)

I do agree that anecdotes shouldn't inform policy.

Okay, how about this. This requirement for age verification is because someone is asserting that profanity or whatever youtube decides is "adult only" is harmful to children.

Since you can't prove a negative, e.g. profanity isn't harmful to children, the question here is can you prove profanity harms children. Yes anecdotes aren't evidence, but what can be asserted without evidence (profanity is harmful) can be dismissed without evidence.

How about the idea that age blocking content and failing to put that trust in our kids is what's detrimental? Reminds me of the all too common tale of a child raised in a helicopter parent household who goes off to college and parties way too hard at their first taste of real freedom.

Circumventing child controls was part of my childhood. I couldn't play runescape until I was "13" but I sure got around that one. Was that bad for me? Seems extremely unlikely.

I agree with the parent comment that this is a pathetic attempt at adults trying every last measure to feel some sort of control over their children.