[kumarvvr]

The problem with this approach is that you will have two groups of children, the ones who have access and the ones who don't have access.

This is a worse problem than allowing it for all.

Its another vector of temptation, distraction, in-equality, etc.

[Terr_]

> in-equality

If your concern is that some parents will be able to afford to give their children their own devices, but not afford any parental-control software with them... Well, that's better-addressed with an explicit "Digital Tools For Needy Parents" program.

If you mean some parents will choose to give their kids more autonomy... Well, isn't it proper for that to be their decision? I have little sympathy for neighbors who use the logic of: "You are banned from giving your child $thing, because I'm tired of hearing my kids whine that they want it too."

[RichEO]

I don’t think the concern is economic equity, it’s social harm.

Kids whose parents choose to restrict will suffer social consequences vs parents who don’t.

The whole point of the law is to reduce the social harm caused by social media.

[oblio]

I'd say the next steps is that you also force institutions for kids to ban it, regardless of parent choice.

Parents must present proof of disabling said websites for their children. Or their kids can just not have those devices with them.

Do this for schools, activity clubs, restaurants, fast for food places, etc, and you've basically hit 80% of places where kids are all the time.

[hcfman]

But not a worse problem than blocking it for everyone