| > These laws exist because social media is extremely damaging to children, These laws exist because people will believe any nonsense if they see it repeated enough times in news headlines. "Social media", as presently incarnated, depending on what definition you choose, may be somewhat damaging to some people, including some children. That does not justify ghettoizing all children. It also doesn't justify creating (yet another) pervasive tracking infrastructure for both children and adults, but that's the part everybody alway harps on. Cutting off teenagers from society as a whole? Nobody's willing to say that's bad. Well, it's bad. It's especially bad for the ones who are getting the least support at home. > destroying their attention, Maybe. Strongest among the claims. Applies to adults, too; there's no sign that adults are one tiny bit more resistant. Best addressed by structural changes to the platforms. > exposing them to online bullying and extortion, Occasionally happens. Occasionally happens offline, too. And in online venues that aren't "social media" unless you have an insanely broad definition. One does not lock people in a vault because of that. > and showing them horrific and traumatic content. Oh, get a damned grip. You see a picture. Which you probably sought out. It won't kill you. If you're so sensitive that it really gets to you for the long term, your problem is your capacity for "trauma". Something else will "traumatize" you up to whatever that capacity is. > Can anyone suggest a better way of protecting kids, other than age verification? Restructure the platforms. For everyone. > In a trade off between child protection and online freedom child protection will win. Well, yes, when the "tradeoff" is being made by hysterical idiots. Which admittedly is what tends to happen. |
Every dad I know who works in tech supports some kind of restriction on social media/smartphones for kids. The argument is how to do it, not whether we should.