[pcrh]

Kids don't need Twitter.

There would obviously arise a market for a moderated, or more regulated, version of this type of social media.

Social media doesn't deserve an exemption from the efforts society makes to protect children in other domains.

[pibaker]

Who do you trust to moderate a platform like twitter? Its current owner? The US government?

[inigyou]

So basically you just ban any company from serving both kids and porn stars, no matter how hard they keep them separated? This is one of the avenues people often go down to censor the porn industry. You're effectively doing "think of the children! ban porn!" without doing it explicitly.

[pcrh]

A system as above would matter only to sites that want children among their audience.

Those that don't, or don't care, would not seek a rating, and would not be accessible to devices that parents control. Otherwise they would be free to host whatever legal content they wish.

[inigyou]

Twitter wants to serve children and it also wants to serve porn stars, and there's no good reason it can't do both as long as it keeps them separate, but your proposal doesn't allow it to know who's a child so it can't keep them separate and in response to that it has to ban one or the other from the platform entirely.

[pcrh]

Twitter can make a "Kid's Twitter" (Kitter? Kidder?) if it wants. It's far less oppressive than forcing people to reveal their identity to Twitter.

[inigyou]

Great now you have two websites. This seems way more inconvenient than simply hiding over18 tweets if the user is a kid?