@MisuseCase @robin I'd love to know, honestly.
I've been watching a hearing in European Parlament co-hosted by one of Foundation's chairwoman but this was not raised there, nor it was on most recent 2 hour interview with the same Foundation chairwoman and a panel with other experts.
Granted, their English post summarizing the EP hearing does have a more nuanced take mentioning how those regulations shift responsibility from platforms to their users https://en.panoptykon.org/dsa-vs-reality-are-children-safer-online-ep-hearing, however it does not appear the Foundation itself has changed the course described in their polish post (https://panoptykon.org/media-spolecznosciowe-od-15-lat) or in a statement given by same chairwoman to 15 powodów (15 reasons) which is a campaign advocating for "effective and proportional" age verification mechanisms.
I think it's also fair to mention communication from their Fediverse account https://eupolicy.social/@panoptykon/115491550233208488 here, where they argue that they've "came in terms" with the idea that age verification is coming and they pose their role as mediator to minimize its effect on freedom, while admitting they don't know how to introduce that mechanism without infringing upon freedom.
Again, I love what Panoptykon does usually, they've done huge amounts of work at protecting privacy and freedom, I have donated to it in the past, so it's weird they've taken such a turn. Which I think to them is located at crossroads in between protecting creatures from big tech and protecting creatures from mechanisms of surveillance and censorship.