That line right there sank your entire argument, because A) you don’t have to have kids to want to protect kids, and B) it makes the position that anyone without kids should have no say in how those with kids rear and raise their children, which could be (and is often) dangerously expanded to oppose Doctors, Teachers, Social Workers, and other people in other professions or knowledge areas solely because they’re childless.
A more generous reading of this is "If you were around kids more, you would probably understand that kids have internet access even without their parent's permission and/or help" At least some of this access is essentially state-mandated, as it happens at public schools, which you are required to send your kids to unless you have the resources to arrange alternative education.
I don’t give generous readings to bad arguments from online anons. The point of anonymous discourse is to come at it with your best arguments and debate them thoroughly, which is why there’s a lot of discussion about common methods of “bad faith” argument styles like the preceding commenter used (“you don’t have kids” = “your opinion is irrelevant”).
Also, a lot of folks are making some assumptions about my person and profession to suit their own arguments, rather than discuss the merits of what I raised. These assumptions ultimately destroy their own arguments by showing a resultant lack of curiosity and a reliance on pre-existing narratives rather than carefully thought out rationale.
That’s why these ID checks keep winning: suckers drinking the Kool-Aid without thinking for themselves and dismissing what they perceive to be opposition, who in reality have more experience with this with kids and in education than they assume when dismissing our positions.
I don’t need to be more understanding of bad actors or bad arguments, they need to be better at discussing their positions rationally or trusting experts who have lived these problems.
That line right there sank your entire argument, because A) you don’t have to have kids to want to protect kids, and B) it makes the position that anyone without kids should have no say in how those with kids rear and raise their children, which could be (and is often) dangerously expanded to oppose Doctors, Teachers, Social Workers, and other people in other professions or knowledge areas solely because they’re childless.
Be better.