[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.

[dataflow]

> 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.

It is the problem. I don't think you understood my point. If nobody in high school had it, I wouldn't be bringing it up. The problem here is some students will have it the last year and some won't. By seeing it at 18, you're making it worse for the younger kids. Either 19 or 16 would be better.

[dsvnasd]

I didn’t think that was your point so I did misunderstand it. I agree this is a concern but I’m not sure how it’s totally avoided. 12% of high school seniors graduate at 19.

In any case, I’m probably not the right person to determine the cutoff criteria. Whatever the boundary, that’s going to be a rough time for those going through it.

[dataflow]

> I’m not sure how it’s totally avoided. 12% of high school seniors graduate at 19.

I mean there's a reason (well, multiple) why I suggested 16 instead of 19. I just pointed out that 19 to try to get my point across about social media being harmful.

> Whatever the boundary, that’s going to be a rough time for those going through it.

Again, this wasn't the point. The point was that if you do this in the last year of high school, you're not just giving younger kids a temporary rough time for that one year. You're also robbing them of their very last opportunities to form the stronger long-term connections they would have made during that time, which inflicts life-long damage to them socially. If you put the cutoff a little earlier so they all have a year or two to adjust to the new social environment, you avoid that long-term harm.

Also, nobody said the cutoff has to be rounded to the exact day. It could just as well be moved to coincide with the start or end of a school year, avoiding this problem entirely. And it'll be easier to enforce in school too.

[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.