This response is a textbook example of a manipulative false dichotomy that poisons legitimate discourse about child safety online.
Presenting the only options as either "scan your child's biometric data into opaque systems" or "let your child be groomed and/or get addicted to porn" is intellectually dishonest and deliberately inflammatory. It's a rhetorical trap designed to shame parents with valid privacy concerns into compliance.
Privacy rights and child protection are not mutually exclusive. Numerous approaches exist that don't require harvesting biometric data from minors, from improved content filtering and educational initiatives to parental controls and account verification methods that don't rely on facial scanning. Corporations are simply implementing the most convenient (for them) solution that technically satisfies regulatory requirements while creating new data streams they can potentially monetize.
What's actually happening here is deeply troubling: we're normalizing the idea that children must surrender their biometric data as the price of digital participation. This creates permanent digital identifiers that could follow them throughout their lives, with their data stored in systems with questionable security, unclear retention policies, and potential for future misuse.
Weaponizing the fear of child exploitation to silence legitimate concerns about corporate overreach isn't just manipulative - it's morally reprehensible. Framing opposition to biometric surveillance as being pro-exploitation deliberately poisons the well against anyone who questions these systems.
We can and must develop approaches that protect children without surrendering their fundamental privacy rights. Pretending these are our only two options isn't just wrong - it actively undermines the nuanced conversation we should be having about both child safety and digital rights.