[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.