You're trivializing how difficult tampering with OS internals in locked down secure boot environments can be. Just look at the state of Android custom roms. Devices that are years old can be impossible to modify the OS on.

The problem is not that it's hard to cheat (it's easy), the problem is it makes you officially a liar and liable for "illegal app use".

It might not be a problem for you, but some underage kid, who lied about their age, gets addicted to a game with in-game purchases and gets into financial trouble now has no recourse against the company who made the addicting game.

It's more like mandating every nuclear weapon must have a prominent safety switch.

People, generally, have no grasp of what they really want or what downstream effects of what they think they want look like. They don't know what it would take to effect that ban. In fact, I would speculate that if the same group were asked "should you, personally, have to scan your ID to visit Facebook," you'd see a meaningful shift in responses. (yes, I know that's not the way this particular CA proposal would be implemented, the point is that people are fickle and polls are not a good guide for lawmaking)

I also don't base my principles on the desires of the masses. It's our duty as people who understand the technology to prevent the controversy-de-jour from wagging our dog.

I share your feeling that if everyone did it this way and the world promised to stop making bad, privacy-invading ID laws I could grin and bear it. I don't see that happening, thus I am hostile to it in any flavor.

I'm curious what a poll of public opinion would say about certain demographics in 1930's Germany. Does that seem like a good argument for what the government should and shouldn't do?

A reasonable compromise? With who? Who here is somehow required to "compromise"?