You are sealioning. It's literally all you do. You pretend to put forth a reasonable argument, but you ignore absolutely everything anyone else says, and then try to trap them with what you think are clever questions. But you're just a pigeon shitting on a chess board claiming victory.

And you keep proving you are incapable of realizing that what you are saying is not the same as what is happening in REALITY. Your premise is foundationaly flawed. Accessing a porn site, and walking into a strip club, are completely different things. You, however, only seem to be able to understand that both have naked people in them, so they are the same.

It's illegal for a kid to walk in a strip club, it's also illegal for a kid to access porn. The difference is that the strip club has a physical door you can stop the kid from passing through. You can see, and physically interact with, the kid at the strip club. On the internet you do not have that. A kid can not change themselves to be someone else, and have reasonable proof that they are an adult, and in a location where this is legal, at a strip club, like they easily can online. With less than an hour with google, and some basic computer software, a child can easily make themselves look anyway they want to a porn site, ISP, platform, etc. The best one can do with the strip club is provide a fake ID if you look like you could be old enough. Guess what? If they do this it is THEIR fault, not the strip club's. The strip club can say "hey they had an ID and look like they are old enough" because they can physically interact with them. False identification is what is happening when a child accesses porn. This time they have no physical person there to examine though. They are saying "yes I am legally able to get on here" and, since there is no reasonable way to make sure this is true, they get let in the door. If the legal penalty changes to the site provider, who exists in a REALITY where there is no reasonable way to ensure someone is who they say they are, then there is no reasonable way they can adhere to a law, thus effectively creating a blanket ban of online porn without having to say "we made something ruled to have first amendment protections illegal".

If parents, who know, and have more control over, their child than anyone else, can't stop them, what in hell makes you think some outside entity, who can only interact with them via layers of abstraction, could possibly do so? All this shit does is make kids learn how to mask their locations, and fake their credentials online, which is not hard to do. The only reasonable person to hold responsible for this is the child's parents/care givers. The onus of liability has to fall on them. Even places like China can't keep people from faking their identities online, yet you want to saddle porn sites with a legal burden if they can't. But you don't really want to stop children from accessing porn. You want porn to be illegal for everyone.