| I think the article misses the biggest point of the social media or any "ban" for children: the environment (social) effect. (modern) children are essentially locked in their environment without much say. You go to school, you go to extra curricula activities. But the school you attend or other activities are often not your choice or in your control. On top of that, you often don't know better when it comes to what environments are actually available to you (or the effect of it). This makes the dynamics completely different vs an adult. I (adult) don't want to use social media? Fine I do that. Too big consequences in my immediate environment (all my friends/work use it) fine I'll change friends and work. Everyone is smoking but I don't want to? Fine I'll hang out with people that don't like smoking either. Hell I can even move country / location. When everyone is smoking or using social media, a kid can't do anything about it. If that behavior is tied to social inclusion or "norm" then you're actively penalized for your choice and you can do almost nothing about it. That's why we ban certain things for children. We know it won't work 100%, but taking it away from the school yard or social spaces have a profoundly different effect on children vs adult. We can always dicuss WHAT to ban or not, but like the article, comparing adult to kids without acknowledging this is a red herring |