If social media is as bad for them as you seem to think it is, then why wouldn’t it be best for them?
I’m old enough to remember the same trash arguments over video games, rap music, even (for some unknown reason) the Disney Channel. This is just another moral panic.
This is an overly simplistic, idealistic view of the world that leads to people thinking things like the OP are good and necessary. By recognizing that the world doesn't actually work this way at all—things aren't black and white, they're gray—you come to the conclusion that legislation is the worst way to solve these issues and is totally unnecessary.
> you come to the conclusion that legislation is the worst way to solve these issues and is totally unnecessary.
If you want to argue for that point of view, do so. Put forward actual arguments. Your comment reads as “if you were smart like me, you’d know I’m right”. Which is unfalsifiable and unconvincing.
That's an overly nonspecific criticism. It's more of a compliment of your own cognitive abilities rather than something tangible I can map onto my comment.
Name-calling now? I’ll give you the fourth option that you neglected to include:
- Kids continue to use social media despite the ban, with some using sketchy circumvention services or older friends to gain access, and with others driven to totally unsupervised social media in foreign countries and/or the dark web, with predictable results. The majority of kids rightly see the restrictions placed upon them as unreasonable and grow up with less respect for government and the law, broadly harming social trust as they enter adulthood.
It's a question of magnitudes. There will be at least one kid who does what you're saying, but how many? My strong intuition is that it'll be a small number, too small to cancel out the benefits. The appeal will be largely gone when the network effects are gone. So I say run the experiment in one country and observe the outcome and adjust accordingly. That is the least idealistic position.
As long as it’s not my country and you don’t try to apply your rules extraterritorially, fine. (And feel free to block US-hosted services if you don’t like the way we run things.)
Parent of a 21 and 18 year old so I’m somewhat familiar about how to do parenting, thanks.
Yes, “no” is a tool that more parents can and should reach for. But if you’ve got any experience at all of kids you’ll know it’s really not as straight forward as this. The more responsibility you can push off to others, such as government or schools, the easier this is.
We brought ours up with pretty strong guidelines and lots of “no” but we’re fortunate in having some time and some money and some knowledge about how to block stuff on the network and so on - lots of parents aren’t as lucky. They need all the help they can get.
Describe three hypotheticals to me of what you think will happen in the following circumstances:
* Kid who is told "no" by his parents
* Kid who is told "yes" by his parents
* Kid who "can't" sign up for social media because it's illegal to do so at their age, who then signs up for it when it becomes legal.
I would really like to see what you believe the outcomes of these three scenarios would be, because I doubt any of them are truly catastrophic, considering we are, at best, merely delaying the onset of social media use by the kid by just 2-3 years.
Read literally anything about brain elasticity and then come back and tell me those “just” 2—3 years are unimportant. These are key, critical years for development. Pretty much all the studies are saying it’s fucking us, and particularly our kids.
Personally I want to do something about this, and IMO every move in the direction that helps even in a small way is a good one.
