[random1temp2]

>that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life

This is the crux of your argument and is vaguely worded. Saying 'not going to help' is not mutually exclusive with 'not going to hinder'. I'd like to see a proof of a stronger condition than 'not helping', for example 'actively harming' before you are justified in calling for action. Your have not provided any sources to back up your claims.

This argument frustrates me because even if uncensored internet access is mentally harmful for a child, the assumption that the correct way to address this is censorship, to me, smacks of denial. Censorship only works on the naive.

> How do we solve the problem?

Accept that uncensored internet access in a 21st century western society is unconditional, and display appropriate parenting skills to teach your children to mentally cope with anything they might encounter. 'Worked on my machine'.