Parents are already able to do whatever they want to their children's devices with parental software. What it would allow is for websites and users themselves to flag their content as not suitable for younger viewers, which might be more useful than the ad-hoc and probably more invasive client-side parental controls. It would also be useful in certain online communities where people don't want to be interacting (especially unknowingly) with children.
Anyway, this is all a ridiculous hypothetical because it assumes the reason this is being done is not evil, which is obviously not actually true.
This might actually be a good idea if it's just something parents can set in parental controls so that websites and apps can check it for parental restrictions.
It seems that western liberals are so steeped in anti-communism that it seems to override reality at times even for the most "reasonable" among them. Even when the evidence it wasn't true is incredibly obvious and laid out in front of them, they can't let go of the orthodoxy that the Soviets were "paranoid" and so they inevitable end up doing genocide denial like this (erasing the obvious genocidal intent from the Nazis that would disprove that orthodoxy). I think they often justify it to themselves under the banner of "nuance", which can be fabricated to make things that are actually very simple seem as complicated as needed to suit their agenda, whether it's done consciously or subconsciously.
The communist evidence is "they said they were going to kill us all" and the fascist evidence is "they're scheming subhuman jews who hate the herrenvolk, so we need to kill them all before they dilute our blood and kill our race" and the very nuanced western historians will say things like "both sides believed without evidence that they would be genocided".
They can be considered petty bourgeois, yes, though IMO "artisan" is more specific and useful, as @into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml said. A common characteristic of the petty bourgeois is that they seek to identify themselves with the "haute" bourgeoisie, which is what freelance photographers who employ no other people are doing when they describe themselves as "photography business owners".
I don't think "there is a class difference between those who are self-employed and those who employ others and describing both as business owners only flattens that difference" is a reach. Describing oneself as a business owner instead of a laborer when doing freelance labor is an example of the tendency of the lowest of the petty bourgeois to try to liken themselves to the "haute" bourgeoisie.
I am attempting to explain what OP said in the title.
people's brains are so addled by capitalism that people who take pictures of people's pets for a living will tell you that they have a "pet photography business"
You're right technically, what I really meant was that they were LARPing as bourgeois. They're not bourgeois if they don't employ others. Without being bourgeois, "business owner" is a technicality and the only effect of using it to describe oneself is that it (attempts to) liken oneself to the actual bourgeoisie (the LARP). They are freelance photographers, not "photography business owners" because they make money by taking photographs, not owning a photography business.
It's the difference between describing an occupation and LARPing as a "small business owner". Unless you employ others, it's just your labor and IMO describing yourself as a "business owner" in that situation is bourgeois mentality. It could be "I work as a pet photographer" if you prefer.
