[wongarsu]

Why 18? Why not 21, or 26?

I agree with you that this would create a forbidden fruit, and a combination of social media becoming more desirable to under-16yo and teenagers binging social media as soon as they become 16. But the solution to that is to push the age limit down, not up. 14 or 12 would be much more reasonable ages. That gives parents a clear cutoff when their kids have to be ready for social media, and prevents bans in the phase where teens are most rebellious

[hopelite]

It seem to me the obvious counter is that the current age of things like FB is 13. Short of legislated controls, guardrails, limits on that access (e.g., parental responsibility for any and all online activities with parental notifications, reports, and clandestine surveillance abilities, limitations based on immediate proximity or same school attendance, limitations based on age difference, i.e., only +/- 1 year, etc) I don't see how the current state is ideal.

The problem now is arguably that parents are not really good at "teaching" children about SM, to a large part because they aren't "good" at it, don't underestand it, and it constantly changes too (Looking at FB here).

I would agree with you if there were some kind of solid, public input crafted specification and standard for SM to not just handle minors, but even transportability across SM/sites, and also hard user data protections and ownership laws. The idea being that possibly anything but boring BBS basically dying out because the data cannot be captured, collected, and sold like harvesting humans in the Matrix.