> Most parents would consent, therefore we should not require consent I don't see how that follows at all. Considering children can't consent and their parents

> Most parents would consent, therefore we should not require consent I don't see how that follows at all. Considering children can't consent and their parents consent is the only one that matters. The argument would simplify to > Most people would consent to X, therefore we shouldn't require consent for X. Which sounds ridiculous, imagine if we were all forced to do what the majority likes. Even without a tyranny of the majority (where the majority would be a homogenous group) that would be a dystopia. > I personally think that it's not the government's place to say how much exposure I want to give my child to the internet, but I have rules and boundaries around that with my kid. First, I am not necessarily talking about "The government" (what exactly is that anyways, judicial, law? state, federal?), for example it could be a site's policy, and in turn it could be determined at courts based on liabilities. If courts enforced more damages to kids that suffer from chatbots as compared to adults, then that would push the companies to limit minor's access without laws or executive orders (whether that is "the government" to you depends, but I find it more helpful to think in terms of more specific groups instead of talking/thinking of THE GOVERNMENT as a homogenous mindhive.)