[XorNot]

But all the other kids will simply be on the next thing. They're on social media because that's accessible, but the assumption is the demand for such things will vanish because you banned them?

I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of these things were easily accessible, but they fulfilled a need.

The situation being addressed is basically "I am taking no steps to limit my child from access to something I already disapprove of" and I don't see how this would address anything. You got them off Snapchat or TikTok but why wouldn't word of mouth just find a new service to act as a virtual third space? Social media works just fine in a web browser.

Basically there's a strain of assumption which could be summarized as "children aren't smart enough to use Mastodon!" as though to do so is not just "visit this URL here's the QR code".

[neumann]

It's a lowest energy state approach. The hope is that the hurdle will be raised high enough that enough kids will go to another outlet that is less harmful.

Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. The information dense but fractured culture we are in makes it so kids will find otherways to communicate and share 'memes' (original sense of the world) and that this is whack-a-mole.

But, for many kids it will be enough to at least allow the parent's some appeal to authority to minimise their kids screen time and access to social media.

[dmalik]

The internet still exists outside of social media sites designed to keep you there. I hope kids under 16 get addicted to anything else and don't turn to social media when they're old enough.