I wonder how many kids are in the audience for the Dollar Tree website? (Presumably, even fewer are in Audible’s audience). Note also in this case that Dollar Tree’s cookie wall gave options to decline the cookies and still proceed (of course the plaintiffs contest that Dollar Tree followed the option). In any case, kids can click through the TOS/cookie wall without revealing any personal info. That’s different from the mandatory age authentication processes that governments compel.

Requiring children to routinely age-authenticate as they navigate the Internet will teach children that privacy invasions are the unavoidable cost of accessing vital information and services in our society. This lesson will permanently distort how children view privacy.

This was your #2 reason that age authentication was not a good idea from your testimony to New Zealand's Parliament.

But then you state here that there are a half-dozen trivial login/signup changes that could enforce TOS (that I suspect all children and most adults don't read.)

I'm curious as to how you (personally and professionally) view the ethics of interstitial cookie walls, pixels, and trivial TOS formations that likely already "permanently distort how children view privacy"?