You're supposed to think this is an irrational parental response. To be sure, the scenario is unlikely. A parent this vigilant would simply not permit unsupervised access to the internet or internet enabled devices. This is probably a joke. But does the joke illustrate an irrational parental response to exposure to something as toxic and potentially life-wrecking as reddit? Consider instead meth. Not everyone who tries meth becomes an addict, shitting on the street, sucking dicks for meth. Some people try it once and don't like it. Many people don't have an addiction response to meth. Should a parent wait to see if their child becomes addicted before smashing the pipe they found in their child's sock drawer?