[benabbott]

I fully support this. In fact, make it 18. I see it like a new type of drug. Future generations will be horrified that we permitted children to connect their brains to attention-optimization algorithms running on supercomputers.

Children can not consent. They can't sign contracts. They don't understand the ramifications of what algorithmically delivered content does to you.

[mezzie2]

I have one primary worry about this. Do you spend much time on college campuses or around military bases? If so, you know that credit card companies and shady car dealerships loooove the newly 18 year old adults.

I think that introducing people to social media right when they'll be on the hook for all their bad decisions during the exploratory period is going to result in a lot of 18-20 year olds in a ton of debt + them being even more hooked on social media than kids are now because they'll also be away from adult supervision. Imagine the sports betting ads for the newly 18. The influencers puffing up the newly 18 about how adult and mature they are and all adults buy product X, etc. They'll have no way of knowing what's normal to share and will probably overshare, but unlike minors, they'll be legally able to torpedo the rest of their lives. Etc.

Making it 18 puts a target on their back for the ad and social media companies: Fresh meat that aren't entitled to any protection. That seems like a bad combination to me.

[NeutralCrane]

I mean if 13 year olds had cash to spend and were able to buy cars and open credit cards, they’d target them too. It’s not because they aren’t inoculated, it’s because they are susceptible to the negative consequences at that age regardless.

[cathalc]

On that point, I don't think most adults understand the ramifications either!

[dataflow]

18 seems terrible. You're making a fraction of the kids miss out on their friends' lives just before they're about to go their separate ways and potentially never see each other again. At least give them a bit of time to naturally settle into the new social environment before they permanently part ways?

[hooverd]

They can build those relationships without being hooked into the slop machine.

[dataflow]

Not when half of the are hooked, no. See my other comments.

[nosbo]

Not disagreeing with you. But we (those of us old enough to remember) still kept in touch with our friends that moved away to different unis before social media existed.

[dataflow]

You're missing the issue I'm referring to. Staying in touch with you is very different when the communication mechanism doesn't pose extra hurdles and burdens compared to the majority of your cohort. It's also very different when you're already close friends by the time you part ways. The issue here is that some people will have social media and some will lack it, putting the latter at an artificial and entirely avoidable disadvantage, causing them to make fewer of those close friendships in the first place compared to their peers. This disparity is the issue I'm talking about, when the bonds aren't strong enough yet.

[OptionOfT]

I disagree.

If the relationship is valuable to you, it requires maintaining. Following each other on social media isn't the same.

Not to mention social media is filled with someone's best moments which give you a bad view on how you're doing against your peers.

Not to that half of the posts on social media are ads, which aren't good for you at any age.

[dataflow]

> If the relationship is valuable to you, it requires maintaining. Following each other on social media isn't the same.

Maybe not to you, but to some people it is incredibly valuable for maintaining relationships. And these are kids about to part with most of their friends for the first time, you can't rely on them having learned your insightful life lessons by this point. I'm guessing you've never been felt the negative effects being left out of a social circle can have? Relationships aren't binary, not everyone is best friends or strangers. Lots of room in between for people to bond or be left out.

[dsvnasd]

With any regulation there are pro/cons. You've highlighted a con but there are significant pros to overcome.

I grew up in a pre internet world. We had "negative effects being left out of a social circles" then too. Social circles being hard is not going away regardless of how this decision lands.

[dataflow]

> I grew up in a pre internet world. We had "negative effects being left out of a social circles" then too. Social circles being hard is not going away regardless of how this decision lands.

The fact that you never grew up in the social media world highlights exactly why you don't understand the problem despite thinking you do. Your good old "social circles being hard" issue is not the problem here.

Please understand that there are plenty of situations where someone gets invited to something if and only they are visible to others and easy to invite. i.e. there exist plenty of situations where being on the platform is the sole determining factor. And that being off the platform that the majority use puts a very significant, ongoing, and asymmetric burden on the host (or invitor, if it's a different person) to keep them posted on all the details that did not exist otherwise, and this fundamentally makes one less likely to be included, in an entirely natural and unavoidable fashion that is no fault of anyone involved, and has nothing to do with "social circles being hard".

You have to recognize when the system is making a problem worse than it naturally is.

[dsvnasd]

> You have to recognize when the system is making a problem worse than it naturally is.

The irony. How can you be certain that it's not social media making "problem worse than it naturally is"? Many people believe that social media is.

As someone who was not particularly visible, and was not invited to every party, I am very aware that "there are plenty of situations where someone gets invited to something if and only they are visible to others and easy to invite". Is "not being on social media" really all that different than "not being on the <insert sport> team"? The same arguments apply. Easier to see and invite teammates, more social cache, etc.

In any case, if all teens were off social media then it would not be a determining factor, and I'm sure alternative systems would emerge for inviting people to places.

[pushupentry1219]

> Maybe not to you, but to some people it is incredibly valuable for maintaining relationships.

Communication is incredibly valuable for maintaining relationships. Whether that's through social media, IM, calling them, hanging out in meatspace. THAT is valuable. Not merely following someone on social media.

I am in my early 20s. My highschool life (and some after) was filled with social media use and borderline addiction. I added people on social media that I kind of knew, or talked to once, or wanted to talk to.

But literally none of that kept me in touch with most if not all of them. More than half of them I never messaged, never interacted with on social media.

What kept me in touch with them was me or them. I deleted all my social media. And the ones who make the effort to contact me out of social media? Those are the real relationships.

[illiac786]

> Children can not consent. They can't sign contracts. They don't understand the ramifications of what algorithmically delivered content does to you.

I’d argue, neither do the majority of adults.

I’m still for this ban because a young brain is so much more malleable and hence much more at risk.