This is a take I think makes the decision make more sense to me (if this is the reasoning), letting the user opt into compliance rather than forcing their hand.

Is everyone ignoring the direct quote in the orginal post that is referring to laws (California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025)) that are going to force you to verify your age?

Did you ignore the comment in the github where it, and I quote “Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.”. Yes it is optional NOW, but this is in preparation of laws that make it legally Mandatory. Don’t down play this.

For anyone who has worked for a large company that was around for the IBM mainframe days, it’s hilarious watching them try to remove the mainframe from their tech stack, while simultaneously becoming dependent on AI.