[bedhead]

Not sure how I feel about this, but I don't hate it, theoretically. I'm sure it's hopeless in practice. It might be a worthwhile experiment if nothing else. But a piece of legislation will never be an adequate substitute for good parenting.

[stronglikedan]

I'd like to see more science proving that social media is bad for kids before I see lawmakers enacting laws around the theory. That said, I think 16 is too high an age. Kids go into high school at ~13, so I think that would have been a more reasonable age to consider. The hard truth is that most kids don't seem to have access to "good parenting" by any reasonable standard, and parenting is hard with good parenting being harder (not an excuse).

[mbitsnbites]

> I'd like to see more science proving that social media is bad for kids

Smoking tobacco was allowed for children for hundreds of years before it was regulated. Today we can hardly fathom how stupid it would be to allow children to smoke. Social media is much more accessible than cigarettes, far more addictive, and rather than messing with your lungs it messes with your brain and personality.

There are many problems with "waiting for the science". One is that it takes many, many decades to get reliable longitudinal studies on things like addiction and how the brain is affected.

There are so many indications that social media is bad for children (including scientific studies), in many different ways. It really should not be controversial to limit use for children. It's not like it is something that they need.

This book, "Smartphone brain: how a brain out of sync with the times can make us stressed, depressed and anxious" by Swedish MD psychiatrist Anders Hansen, brings up one of the aspects (unfortunately I don't know of an English translation): https://www.amazon.se/Sk%C3%A4rmhj%C3%A4rnan-hj%C3%A4rna-str...

Here's a short video with Anders Hansen: https://youtu.be/DwAx2kRwCRI?t=112

Then there's is of course the question of how to limit the use. But that's another issue.

[dmm]

> I'd like to see more science proving that social media is bad for kids before I see lawmakers enacting laws around the theory

Is there science proving that porn is harmful for children? If not, do you see that as an argument for legalizing it?[0]

The first restrictions on tobacco purchases for children were in the 1880s, long before the science was settled on the harms tobacco use causes.

Science is slow, contentious, and produces limited results[1]. If we can only ban things that are scientifically proven to be harmful, what is stopping TikTok from slightly modifying their app and rereleasing it?

I can easily buy products that are BPA free but that just means clever chemists have come up with even worse platicizers like BPS to use as substitutes.

And software can be adapted way faster than chemistry.

[0] I don't. [1] It's definitely still worth studying.

[brightball]

I’d imagine that 16 is the age when most kids finally get a state ID.

[M4v3R]

Definitely not as a substitute, but it might be something that helps push more parents to consider preventing their children from using social media. It’s much easier for a parent to explain to the child that the reason they’re not allowed to use it is because it’s illegal, instead of trying to explain how social media negatively affects their brains.