> restricting which content or how much someone can consume, even kids, would be touted as deeply authoritarian in our societies

No. We have industry-voluntary schemes such as PEGI ratings, and most products have kid-friendly modes. Spotify, Netflix, YouTube, Disney Plus, Amazon Prime all have kid-specific modes, for example. They're selling to parents, and that's what parents want, so that's what they get.

You're right that governments are needed to make regulations, but not that regulations are needed.

Parents also want cheap gas and big engines that make them feel macho, and to be able to use hand me down car seats of dubious safety.

Sometimes what's good for society takes precedence over what people want.

Sometimes, as you say. Even the car seats fall into the not-society category more than the society category.

And happily your examples are nothing to do with the call for regulations on the topic of having kid-safe versions of content production, so I feel encouraged.

Won't someone think of the child-car-seat manufacturers?! The second hand market is driving them to ~bankruptcy~ [buying fewer yachts]! /s

Where is the time limit in Netflix for Kids? All I see is a selection of content that is appropriate for children. It is much easier to set a limit on a device that is cold and inhuman and can't be pleaded with for more screen time than it is to try and manually enforce such a limit.

It is easier, I agree. We solved the problem a different way entirely, but perhaps putting the TV power itself on a timer could work? Timer on Netflix doesn't mean they can't switch to D+ or other.

> Where is the time limit in Netflix for Kids?

It's called parenting

> It is much easier to set a limit on a device that is cold and inhuman and can't be pleaded with for more screen time than it is to try and manually enforce such a limit.

If you don't want to do parenting, then you can also block access to netflix (or from the tv or whatever) at your router.

While I mostly agree with you there’s an interesting discussion to be had that China also has parents, and they’ve decided that it’s not enough to rely on parenting to address childhood addiction to things like social media. You can argue it’s a good or a bad thing but clearly they’ve taken a different approach, and whether that leads to empirically better outcomes is worth exploring.

A cynic could say China's culture is to cede far more to state control. US culture is to cede it to corporate control.

Either way it's a symptom of parents outsourcing parenting, because the culture in both countries is for parents to work 120 hours a week.

TBH Chinese are still very hands on helicopter parents, even when they work ass off. The issue is you can be strict and controlling and still lose to corporations who spend billions to engineer addictive products. Which at minimum takes disproportionate resources / attention to mitigate. Hypothetically this is where parents complain to state to regulation since ostensibly corporations are suppose to cede control to state. Plus don't have to be the badcop trying to enforce screentime when state takes that choice away. Also plenty of parents who cede control to corporations and allow products to baby sit their kids by giving kids access to adult ID to circuvent restrictions. I feel like US voters are pessimistic their gov can shape corporations in some realms. Like loot box regulations for youth feels like it shouldn't be that difficult to pass.

Thanks for the parent shaming.

Yeah, no, I do not want the government rearing children, thanks.

You probably just meant you don't want a nanny state but as stated it can be interpreted as abolish public schools.