[beloch]

1. A tech solution like this is unlikely to work since kids will be highly motivated to circumvent it and will likely be more tech savvy than their parents.

2. Leaving whether or not to allow social media use up to parental discretion creates a situation where some kids get permission to use social media and the rest use it anyways because of peer pressure.

3. If tackling the problem from the side of children and parents doesn't work, you can try to address it by acting on the social media companies themselves. Unfortunately, these companies will resist any effort to make their products less addictive. Social media companies are mostly American and lobby (bribe) the U.S. government into taking punitive action against anyone who tries to tax or regulate them in a way that actually impacts their bottom line. Since you can't tax/regulate them without facing reprisals, one alternative is to ban them as ineffectually as possible. e.g. Australian kids are still using social media, so the social media companies don't really care. They may actually benefit from the cool/rebel factor their services have been granted.

[pcrh]

The same problem exists for almost any product that might be a risk to children, from cleaning products to "adult" literature.

Parents would be much more able to restrict the devices a child has access to (or its controls) than the websites they visit (absent website certification).

[inigyou]

It doesn't have to work 100%, just add enough friction. We bypassed game site blocks in IT class but we felt dodgy about it and did our work most of the time.

[WithinReason]

1. You can't forge a cryptographic signature

2. Fine the parents

[beloch]

Fining parents because of the bad actions of a foreign tech company would generally fit the definition of "political suicide" for any government dumb enough to do it.

[WithinReason]

How about fining parents because of the bad actions of a foreign tobacco company when they buy cigarettes for their children? Political suicide as well?