[BlackFly]

Network effects from the other side:

If one parent forbids their child then their child becomes a pariah. If no child is able to access social media then they will all interact without it. So yeah, a parent needs their peer's children to also not use social media so that their child is not left out.

In general I'm against age based bans. I think there are alternatives where we would identify and just generally regulate the harmful features of social media. In the meanwhile, I feel empathetic towards the difficulties of parenting in this era.

[CrzyLngPwd]

My 13yr old granddaughter has an iPhone that is locked down by her dad using the apple tool.

It's not difficult.

Her and her friends don't need social media.

[watwut]

If I did that to my 13yrs old, she would not know about when her friends are organizing to meet up. Simple as that. They usually agree on going to visit one of them or local center in chat group. And since they are young, it is all spontaneous "lets go now" kind of thing.

A kid that cant use a phone will sit home alone while others meet up. And I am actually glad my 13 years old has friend group she does in person things with.

[ThinkingGuy]

If only there were some way to use a phone to contact people, without going through a social media platform.

[watwut]

1.) What is the exact way to contact people via phone if those people do not have phone?

2.) And yes, organization among 12 years old means that someone writes "lets do X" and other write back "cool". Those available show up. Those not available sometimes talk back and negotiate different time.

3.) If 5 12-16 years old kids organize in a group chat, not being on that chat means missing out spontaneously organized actions. Even if they are unusually serious and recall to call your parents instead of just jumping into action, you are not there to have input into agreements. So, the meetup will be when you are not available and it will be too late for you.

4.) And yes, even among adults, if others have to jump through special hoops to join you specifically whereas everyone else does not have such requirement ... you will miss out.

Yes, 12-14 years old act on impulse and organized spontaneously without creating org chart around it. That means forgetting to do extra steps so that people not being in chat even know what you are about to do.

[eks391]

> alternatives where we would identify and just generally regulate the harmful features

Good point. The age ban is based on the idea that it is worse for kids (and other exploits) when the big idea is that it is bad for everyone, just moreso for kids. Might as well protect the whole populace when one change of the app design will do that.

[trumpdong]

Alcohol and cigarettes are bad for you but we've decided that when you turn 18 you have the freedom to ruin your own life. (But not with LSD, for some reason)

[BlackFly]

We fear that these drugs have developmental impacts but beyond that we also forbid them in restaurants and indoor environments quite generally even for adults. So adult usage is tolerated in their own home or in the outdoor public environment (although some further restrictions apply here).

I am sympathetic to the idea that social media may also have social development impacts separate from their negative social impacts, but my experience in life is that actually people appear to socially degenerate with overexposure. Thus we probably need some regulation analogous to forbidding smoking in restaurants but for social media or limiting gambler's access. But indeed, maybe on top of that we also need bans for minors.