[phs318u]

> There's nothing keeping you here on a social media website

There’s nothing keeping you here in a casino, gambling your wages away.

There’s nothing keeping you here in a bar drinking yourself to oblivion.

There’s nothing keeping you here smoking three packs a day until you’re shitting tar.

The age old advice to “just stop” doesn’t quite work for those most at risk. Harm minimisation is a reasonable thing. We don’t think it’s a good idea for young kids to smoke, drink, drive, vote or have sex. Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic, why wouldn’t we want to regulate it based on age?

[NavinF]

> Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic

Who is this "we" that accepts that uncritically? I've been on "social media" since I was 8yo and my little brother has been on social media since he was a baby. Now he's becoming a doctor. He grew up with the 1st gen iPhone which was released 17 years ago.

FWIW I think the drinking age of 21 in the US is kinda silly. Many Americans start driving at 14 (with employment letter) or at 15.5 and many Americans buy their first rifle at 18 years old.

[phs318u]

Who’s being uncritical here? I’m not an alcoholic and neither is my sister. That doesn’t mean alcoholism doesn’t exist nor that there aren’t very real harms to a small subset of the population. Great enough harm (that also impacts on non-alcoholics), that we’ve collectively decided to regulate an otherwise legal substance. Would you suggest that we shouldn’t age-limit alcohol? And even with the things you quote - driving and gun ownership - there’s still an age limit, not no age limit. The specific number is irrelevant and up for discussion, but we’ve still decided for those things that there exists a “too young” category.

EDITED to remove a stupid phone autocorrection/autoinsertion.