No real side in this debate because I don't have kids and am basically an anti-natalist but I don't think it's terribly important to control kids media access above a certain age anyway.

It's probably important to prevent them from accidentally seeing irrelevant filth, and may make sense to prevent them from accessing certain stuff before they're ten or eleven. But I had near unfettered access to the wild world of the Internet from a young age and I don't think it made a big negative difference.

I personally think it was important to my development to be able to explore things on my own terms in the relatively safe way of accessing pages on the Internet.

I do think, however, that social media is likely riskier than media consumption for children in certain age groups, but most parents seem to be a-ok with their kids mainlining that and worried instead that they may accidentally see a nipple.

Which one don’t have one?

The ones I mentioned directly after... Please, do not quote out of context.

I feel like people miss the context of the original content and put words in my mouth. I was referring to the claim that parents can "simply" supervise, and should supervise, all media consumption of their children. Which I argue is impossible without infringing on the children's rights of privacy.

It's like people misinterpret my point with intent. Or there is a huge language barrier I can not comprehend.

You can not supervise every media consumption of your children. That is all I wanted to say. I didn't even comment upon whether or not and how good it works (or not) to teach your children about responsible media consumption. That's a whole different topic.