These discussions remind me so much of the US discussions about federal ID documents as verification.

There's a vocal portion of people which opposes any solution because "privacy, government overreach, surveillance ...". So instead of a solution like e.g. zero-proof age verification, that tries to minimize intrusions on privacy, the result is the worst of all worlds, maximum surveillance (but I guess it's ok if it is not the federal government, but meta), with minimum utility. Just look at the freaking mess that is trying to proof your identity in the US.

When I hear this argument ("better the government do it than a private company") I recoil. The government is sovereign, only accepts lawsuits at its discretion, and can use violence to get its way. We also know for a fact that it abuses its powers and conducts surreptitious unlawful campaigns against its citizens.

I'm not on board with any of it, but the last thing I want is the government to control it.

The government is also, at least theoretically, democratic and accountable to the population.

Meta on the other hand is a dictatorship run by Zuck that's only marginally accountable to stockholders (which are only a small subset of the population).

Right. It's theoretical. We have hard proof that it's not, though. The second part is that the government can compel it. I am free to ignore Zuck.