> If you accept the premise that there's a problem* then isn't this exactly the right thing to do?
You are correct *if* there are no associated trade-offs.
But there are *always* trade-offs.
The only interesting question is whether the benefits (fewer children doing things that in some fraction of the cases have significant long-term consequences) is worth the costs (creation of infrastructure to real-time censor images, etc.)
It's not all that different from what asking what costs are acceptable for reducing the level of teenage drinking and driving, another activity that some children are prone to that can also occasionally have disastrous consequences.