> They clearly addressed this option in the post, under sufficient social engineering pressure these settings will easily be circumvented. You'd need at least a 24h timeout or similar to mitigate the social pressure.

"Under sufficient social engineering pressure" is the thing that proves too much. A 24h timeout can't withstand that either. Nor can the ability for the user to use their phone to send money, or access their car or home, or read their private documents, or post to their social media account. What if someone convinces them to do any of those things? The only way to stop it is for the phone to never let them do it.

By the time you're done the phone is a brick that can't do anything useful. At some point you have to admit that adults are responsible for the choices they make.

>By the time you're done the phone is a brick that can't do anything useful. At some point you have to admit that adults are responsible for the choices they make.

Absolutely this! It's just nanny state all over again.

This is somehow even worse. It's strictly enforced with no regard for context, you don't have the constitutional rights you have against the government and you can't vote them out.

Markets are supposed to be better because you can switch to a competitor but that only applies when there is actually competition. Two companies both doing the same thing is not a competitive market.