It's rare I see someone defend online identification. I'm unable to tell if they're a troll, engagement baiting, or being sincere.
Let's discuss it.
Pardon my condescension, but if this is a sincere rebuttal, this person is the LeBron James of logical fallacies.
1. False analogy.
You cannot compare online identification to in person identification. Giving your ID to someone in person is a physical transaction in a controlled environment (bar, tattoo parlor).
The Internet is global and interconnected. Additionally, when providing your ID in person you're doing it for an exchange of a physical good or experience (bar, tattoo parlor).
Identifying yourself online is tied to SPEECH (e.g. social media).
Identifying at a bar is not the same as identifying yourself online.
2. False equivalency
Again, tying back to argument one, providing your identification for something like going to a bar is not the same as providing identification online. Social media, as an example, is a communication platform.
Examples provided: bars, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, guns, lottery tickets, ... This is not the same as needing identification for access to a social media site.
3. Loaded questioning
Rhetorical questions are trying to push the reader to assuming a logical conclusion that online identification is perfect.
4. Over simplification
Identifying everyone online is not a practical solution. This ignores local laws, federal laws, different governments having different laws, free speech laws, data privacy laws, THE COST of performing all of this.
Do people in the United States visiting a Brazilian website need to provide their ID to the Brazilian government? Do they have any jurisdiction? These are real questions.
5. Appeal to ridicule
Concluding your statement with "grow up" tries to shame me, or the reader, for disagreement.
These laws being suggested are far from perfect and serve no one. It will not protect children. The lack of clarity in laws makes people infer nefarious intent.
I like pictures of cats.