Ideally a compromise can be reached, but in extreme cases I suppose it could end up with litigation. But still, this is a private dispute, not something that should require outsourcing parenting to the government.

Yes. When a child is too young, parents should be directly preventing access to those vices. As their children get older, parents should have instilled enough values into their children that constant surveillance is no longer required.

I never had access to cable television or video games growing up, while nearly all my classmates did. It wasn't a big deal.

And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children alcohol. Many would say it's good to give a child a glass of wine at a family dinner so that they learn to drink responsibly.

Msot agree that cigarettes are harmful at all ages, so that's not really relevant.

If they want to give their children devices to use unsupervised, then they should block access to whatever they deem harmful.

Almost all the crypto I have is from p2p or freelancing. Very few could connect my identity and my wallets.

Drugs should be legal, so that's not a problem. Terrorism and human trafficking are more complicated topics, but basically I think they should be attacked more directly, not financially.