Are You In Favor Of Not Allowing Social Media For Young People? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

This is a good question. I speak as not being a parent, and likely never being one, but I would like to think it would be within some range of the realms of possible to educate my kids about the issues that social media has, and that being on your phone all night might not be the most healthy thing to do.

Thanks. It's an interesting and important discussion I think.

 

[ghostguy123]

I just know that if social media didn't exist for kids under 18, the world (including THEIR world) would be a much better place

 

[MTskibum]

I have been on social media since I was a young kid, I was on forums, ICQ, usenet groups, the microsoft gaming site, since about 7th grade.

Although back then it was just nerds.

 

[Desert_Power]

Appreciate reading all the thoughtful posts on this topic. My son is only 2 and I'm not sure if we'll have another. Myspace was blowing up around the time I was a senior in high school, but we did have a lot of crazy stuff on AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) at a younger age.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks for the good discussion on this. Will catch back up to folks Monday.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have been on social media since I was a young kid, I was on forums, ICQ, usenet groups, the microsoft gaming site, since about 7th grade.

Although back then it was just nerds.

More generally, people our age have lived through a massive amount of technological change, and most of it has been an unalloyed good. Color television. Personal computing. GPS. Modern medicine. Streaming. Solar power. We could go on and on. When technologies have made people nervous -- nuclear power, GMOs -- history proved the optimists right. People of our generation have been very strongly conditioned to see new technology as progress and to see the hand-wringers as Luddites who will look foolish in 20 years. It has always worked that way, more or less without exception, since we were children.

Therefore, it is especially important for people of our age to avoid pattern-matching. Yes, those takes about violent video games back in the 90s didn't age well, and we all know that. But we need to stop and seriously consider whether social media is really the same thing as GTA3, or whether we're making a category error by assuming that GTA3 was fine so therefore Instagram is fine. Mental illness among kids didn't spike when GTA3 was released, but it does seem to have spiked when smart phones were released. That's a data point that needs an answer.

 

[Ilov80s]

I have been on social media since I was a young kid, I was on forums, ICQ, usenet groups, the microsoft gaming site, since about 7th grade.

Although back then it was just nerds.

More generally, people our age have lived through a massive amount of technological change, and most of it has been an unalloyed good. Color television. Personal computing. GPS. Modern medicine. Streaming. Solar power. We could go on and on. When technologies have made people nervous -- nuclear power, GMOs -- history proved the optimists right. People of our generation have been very strongly conditioned to see new technology as progress and to see the hand-wringers as Luddites who will look foolish in 20 years. It has always worked that way, more or less without exception, since we were children.

Therefore, it is especially important for people of our age to avoid pattern-matching. Yes, those takes about violent video games back in the 90s didn't age well, and we all know that. But we need to stop and seriously consider whether social media is really the same thing as GTA3, or whether we're making a category error by assuming that GTA3 was fine so therefore Instagram is fine. Mental illness among kids didn't spike when GTA3 was released, but it does seem to have spiked when smart phones were released. That's a data point that needs an answer.

If I had to speculate it's probably less about what social media is and more about what social media is replacing. It's so strange as a teacher to give the kids in class downtime and it's just silent, none of the teenagers are talking to each other. They all just have their forehead on their desk and phone on their lap staring at it and just playing video games or endlessly scrolling.

 

[hagmania]

It's the reaction count and the comment section that are toxic. Validation seeking is a mental and emotional depleter.

I would rather attack the pillars of social media that are most detrimental, because I think stripping away the bad would do the absolute most good for all of society. I soft-support the age limit if that can't be accomplished.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's the reaction count and the comment section that are toxic. Validation seeking is a mental and emotional depleter.

I would rather attack the pillars of social media that are most detrimental, because I think stripping away the bad would do the absolute most good for all of society. I soft-support the age limit if that can't be accomplished.

I would be good with this if I could be convinced that it would work.

 

[massraider]

I would rather attack the pillars of social media that are most detrimental, because I think stripping away the bad would do the absolute most good for all of society.

First pillar most detrimental up for attack:

human nature

 

[hagmania]

It's the reaction count and the comment section that are toxic. Validation seeking is a mental and emotional depleter.

I would rather attack the pillars of social media that are most detrimental, because I think stripping away the bad would do the absolute most good for all of society. I soft-support the age limit if that can't be accomplished.

I would be good with this if I could be convinced that it would work.

I have lots of thoughts about this topic, based on personal experience and a lot of scholarly reading around gamification (I can't help it, I devoted my post-secondary education to game theory). This thread is probably not the best place to discuss for fear of derailment, but if I get some time and I remember to type it up, I'll share more later.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's the reaction count and the comment section that are toxic. Validation seeking is a mental and emotional depleter.

I would rather attack the pillars of social media that are most detrimental, because I think stripping away the bad would do the absolute most good for all of society. I soft-support the age limit if that can't be accomplished.

I would be good with this if I could be convinced that it would work.

I have lots of thoughts about this topic, based on personal experience and a lot of scholarly reading around gamification (I can't help it, I devoted my post-secondary education to game theory). This thread is probably not the best place to discuss for fear of derailment, but if I get some time and I remember to type it up, I'll share more later.

And for sure, feel free to start a new thread if you have another angle that can be it's own thing.

 

[Grahamburn]

Can we ban it for everyone? That’d be great.

 

[themeanmachine]

My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.

 

[Ilov80s]

My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.

I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit but they are addicted to it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If you start the argument against this with "next they will ban porn for kids and then we are down the slippery slope of banning porn for adults"

You lost.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.

I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit they are addicted to it.

We're looking at it as a "freedom/privacy" issue when maybe we should be looking at it as a "coordination problem" issue. I suspect there's a very large chunk of the population -- a chunk which includes a lot of adults -- that would like to see social media go away but those folks as individual don't feel that they can drop it unilaterally, in part because it's too socially isolating to be that one weirdo who's not on Facebook (or whatever your little social circle uses).

It's probably similar to how lots of parents would like postpone their kid getting a phone, but that's easier said than done when all the other kids have phones.

Maybe we can establish a new Schelling point here.

 

[Ilov80s]

If you start the argument against this with "next they will ban porn for kids and then we are down the slippery slope of banning porn for adults"

You lost.

Hmmm I haven't heard that argument but I have heard the argument the government or whomever would be keeping a log of all the porn you watched which is weird and uncomfortable but also seems like it's just part of participation in modern internet life.

 

[thecatch]

My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.

I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit they are addicted to it.

I suspect there's a very large chunk of the population -- a chunk which includes a lot of adults -- that would like to see social media go away but those folks as individual don't feel that they can drop it unilaterally, in part because it's too socially isolating to be that one weirdo who's not on Facebook (or whatever your little social circle uses).

Freakonomics just did a podcast about a study attempting to quantify that.

 

[massraider]

I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit but they are addicted to it.

This post also works when you swap out 'kids' for 'adults'.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.

Thanks. Exactly the sentiment of the daughter mom conversation from the podcast I relayed earlier.

The author in the podcast was a little surprised too.

I think we tend to think not allowing social media is going to be a huge battle trying to convince everyone. And in reality, there more people than we think leaning this way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

 

[Ilov80s]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

Without a doubt. I think school staff would vote like 95% to ban them. But then some parents would get mad they couldn’t text their child all day long.

 

[belljr]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

Without a doubt. I think school staff would vote like 95% to ban them. But then some parents would get mad they couldn’t text their child all day long.

Our kids school "bans" phones during the day. Kids are allowed to carry them and use them during lunch and free period. I don't know how hard it's enforced but that is the rule

 

[Ilov80s]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

Without a doubt. I think school staff would vote like 95% to ban them. But then some parents would get mad they couldn’t text their child all day long.

Our kids school "bans" phones during the day. Kids are allowed to carry them and use them during lunch and free period. I don't know how hard it's enforced but that is the rule

That’s sort of our rule but also as the year goes on, enforcing it becomes such a nightmare that it doesn’t really stick. You have to be so diligent about it because the kids fight about it and sneak them and all that at every moment. It’s such a headache.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

Without a doubt. I think school staff would vote like 95% to ban them. But then some parents would get mad they couldn’t text their child all day long.

Do you see a way this could work? Is it a thing where enough parents support removing the phones vs the parents who want them?

 

[Joe Bryant]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

Without a doubt. I think school staff would vote like 95% to ban them. But then some parents would get mad they couldn’t text their child all day long.

Our kids school "bans" phones during the day. Kids are allowed to carry them and use them during lunch and free period. I don't know how hard it's enforced but that is the rule

I feel like I say this a lot but he covers this in the podcast. Said the "bans" are exactly like you say, in airquotes. Said the reality is most kids have tons of access to their phones during the school day.

He advocates for not allowing phones to be carried by the student. They put them in lockers during the school day or the times they're designated not to be on their phones.

 

[Ilov80s]

The one thing the author on the podcast noted was how much most school administrators hate having phones and social media.

He asked why they didn't ban it.

He said the administrators said they knew there would be a few super vocal parents that would freak out and they didn't feel they could win that fight.

Without a doubt. I think school staff would vote like 95% to ban them. But then some parents would get mad they couldn’t text their child all day long.

Do you see a way this could work? Is it a thing where enough parents support removing the phones vs the parents who want them?

Maybe. There are for sure schools doing it. I don’t know what their success level is or how committed they are to always following the plan.

The other part that is tricky is some parents claim with the worry of school shooters, they want their kids having their phone at all times.

 

[ghostguy123]

The schools will cave to the 1% of parents who make a huge fuss

 

[Tango]

The schools will cave to the 1% of parents who make a huge fuss

We never planned to be home-schoolers. Covid happened and here we are. So our kids are screen-less. They watch TV, but really they just love the library. Their rooms have piles of books everywhere. These are the sorts of messes I dont complain about. And, oh yeah, my wife is amazing,

Meanwhile, Ive been so infested with hacking and all the other downsides-- that we're plotting to become a smartphone-less and minimal internet family as soon as we can swing it. But, admittedly, we dont have a real plan yet. Maybe there's a book out there that lays out some good plans. I need to look into it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The schools will cave to the 1% of parents who make a huge fuss

We never planned to be home-schoolers. Covid happened and here we are. So our kids are screen-less. They watch TV, but really they just love the library. Their rooms have piles of books everywhere. These are the sorts of messes I dont complain about. And, oh yeah, my wife is amazing,

Meanwhile, Ive been so infested with hacking and all the other downsides-- that we're plotting to become a smartphone-less and minimal internet family as soon as we can swing it. But, admittedly, we dont have a real plan yet. Maybe there's a book out there that lays out some good plans. I need to look into it.

I'm seeing more and more of that.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, you can opt for a seat in the non-smoking section.

I don’t think there should be government age restrictions on phone use, but I could get on board treating cell phones more like cigarettes: restrict the places they can be used. Businesses and government can help to establish “no phone zones”, while parents are left to establish policies at home.

Make the phone zones a little inconvenient, and outside, when possible.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I just know that if social media didn't exist for kids under 18 adults over 18, the world (including THEIR world) would be a much better place

 

[Judge Smails]

I think it's very damaging for middle schoolers especially. Especially with online bullying and peer pressure. Think it should be allowed in high school, but have mandatory classes in school. Don't ever send anything you wouldn't want grandma to see, talk about how predators will pretend they're a fellow teen, get your confidence, use it to blackmail, the effects of bullying leading to suicide, etc. Obviously that teaching starts at home, but should be reinforced in class.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think it's very damaging for middle schoolers especially. Especially with online bullying and peer pressure. Think it should be allowed in high school, but have mandatory classes in school. Don't ever send anything you wouldn't want grandma to see, talk about how predators will pretend their a fellow teen, get your confidence, use it to blackmail, the effects of bullying leading to suicide, etc. Obviously that teaching starts at home, but should be reinforced in class.

Some of the blackmail stories in the podcast were heartbreaking. Predators pose as a kid and give the kid attention they're craving. Then they get kids to send them a picture of themselves or a bodypart. Then blackmail the kid that they'll post the picture online and out them unless they do awful things that the blackmailers get to watch live. Heartbreaking.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's fascinating in a world where many parents are more protective than ever in the physical world, we mostly ignore the dangers to kids in the digital world.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I'd be fine eliminating it for everyone. Such a time waste.

 

[beer 30]

@Joe Bryant You might know this guy, he weighs in on the subject

Kids and smart phones

I had this book suggested to me by my friend Tony this last week. And then I saw the author interviewed on TV. Made me feel like I ought to check it out. An epidemic of mental illness is not hyperbole in my opinion. Teenagers today had it tougher than I did, and being a teen in the 80s was no...

www.davidinchina.com

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you start the argument against this with "next they will ban porn for kids and then we are down the slippery slope of banning porn for adults"

You lost.

Jesus. I wouldn’t post with such certitude unless I’d read for a day about the who/what/where about modern politics.

I think he’s making light of “porn for kids”.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Banning social media for everybody is such a spectacularly bad idea that I’m not sure I can even begin to describe it.

Saying they’re not coming for pornography for adults is also a spectacularly bad position. It’s been openly discussed and proposed by one political party. All one has to do is read for two seconds and you’ll find the proposal. My God.

If you start the argument against this with "next they will ban porn for kids and then we are down the slippery slope of banning porn for adults"

You lost.

Jesus. I wouldn’t post with such certitude unless I’d read for a day about the who/what/where about modern politics.

We need to keep this thread non-political, so let's suppose you're right and there's a constituency out there that wants to ban porn for adults. If we were able to get porn-for-kids under control, do you think that would strengthen or weaken the popular case for imposing restrictions on adults?

 

[rockaction]

Perhaps I'm missing the point here. I might have missed a joke. And perhaps I'm missing the nuance of his argument.

My thought is that once the means to restrict access are in place to one category of the population (kids), those means have potential to be extended to other categories of the population (adults).

You can argue that "we're only putting these means to restrict access in place to one category of the population," and that's a fine argument to make. I'm sure there are people that deeply hold that stance. But to say that those means—with certainty—won't be extended and to say that one who fears that extension "has lost" the argument seems patently wrong to me.

If we were able to get porn-for-kids under control, do you think that would strengthen or weaken the popular case for imposing restrictions on adults?

It can go either way, really. I think that depends on the motivation and who holds the position and what access is all about. I think I know where you're coming from. I think you're going to argue that if we ban pornography for kids, and we do it effectively, then people won't be so receptive to banning all pornography because the kids are what people are really worried about.

I am here to tell you that it is very likely that the drivers of the restriction of pornography that can be accessed by kids and the main drivers of pushing for particular means to curtail access by kids are coming from people whose main goal is to ban all pornography full stop.

It's like NORML and other advocacy groups when they pushed for medical marijuana. That wasn't what they really wanted at all. They wanted full legalization for recreational use.

If we are not allowed to be political, then I have no further evidence to rely on other than a simple hunch that the main drivers of this are likely to come after all pornography next and that it will be argued that pornography is not protected speech, which will rely on a postulate that what constitutes speech has been broadened by interventionist courts along the way.

And you will see a reduction in speech writ large.

And that, of course, is a hunch. And if we're not allowed to get political, let me add that I'm almost positive that I'm correct and that it would take a few Google searches by those who are familiar with the issue and the key words and the organizations relevant to find it.

 

[rockaction]

And I should say that I'm not in favor of child access of pornography nor that we should not figure out ways for children not to have access to it.

My hesitancy comes from the simple history of legal cases whereby what constitutes "pornography" or what is considered harmful to minors is debated hotly by those passing the laws and those subject to those laws.

It has not always been the case that the understanding has been so neatly divided and that we all know what kids should be showing ID for. Instead, it is about prior restraint of material and the sales to adults where the question always seem to land, because the laws themselves are often Trojan horses designed to smuggle in morality laws in the guise of laws that are designed to protect children.

 

[FBG Moderator]

This has been a good discussion.

Please keep discussion 100% non political.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If you start the argument against this with "next they will ban porn for kids and then we are down the slippery slope of banning porn for adults"

You lost.

Hmmm I haven't heard that argument but I have heard the argument the government or whomever would be keeping a log of all the porn you watched which is weird and uncomfortable but also seems like it's just part of participation in modern internet life.

It is in this thread. I was too lazy to go back and find it to reply to since i read through the first few pages before posting.

 

[Max Power]

My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.

I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit but they are addicted to it.

The phone addiction is the craziest piece to me. I've been lucky that 3 of my 4 kids still have the ability to put the phone down and live life for hours at a time. My youngest daughter has a problem with it. The phone is always in her hand and she struggles to do normal everyday things at times because she's on her phone trying to do two things at once. At first it was a bit funny, but now we know its a real problem.

The only punishment that works with her is losing her phone and in all honesty she a much happier person when he doesn't have it.

At work we struggle with Gen Z new hires as well because of their phones. You can't bring a phone into the building here, so many don't even take the job because of that. Others that do are constantly going out to their car to check their phones to the point of being written up. Their actual excuse is that their anxiety skyrockets when they don't have access to their phone. I can't see how this trend doesn't continue as more and more young people only know life being attached to a phone.

 

[B Maverick]

I actually brought this discussion up to my 14 year old over the weekend. Told her some of the thoughts and points and she thought it was an interesting topic too. She didn't have many specific thoughts on it overall but it was a good opening for the two of us to talk.

 

[rockaction]

This has been a good discussion.

Please keep discussion 100% non political.

"Today, Haidt explains how this massive change happened, its detrimental effects on kids, and what actions we can take—both in our own lives and legislatively—in order to reverse course and free the anxious generation."

This is from the OP. This discussion started with "legislatively" as one of the two components for limiting child access.

To then ask "Are you in favor of not allowing social media for young people?" is inherently a political question. If was about "in our own lives," then the question would be phrased differently.

Haidt is a distinctly political writer who discusses political topics.

If you're asking us to be non-partisan then I think we can do that. To say we should keep this apolitical is just . . . well, discussion about the topic is impossible without it, and the source that inspired the question is a political book by a political author.

So my conclusion is . . . C'mon. What the heck?

That's sort of an impossible request.

 

[PIK95]

If they can have jobs, they should be able to access whatever imo. I am listening if the question is totally banning (prefer banning ads) certain social media. Facebook was so great when it first hit. You would just see what someone on your feienda list posted in real time. It was the best way to communicate with your people. Then they ruined it. It's horrible now.

So I guess I want social media to be an ad free way to communicate with friends and family. No celebrity follows either. That would be great, and no reason to waste time.

 

[Gally]

I voted slightly opposed to not allowing. My reasoning is that I think it's the parents job to educate their children about social media and how to deal with it. It will be part of their lives. It is not ever going away so pretending it isn't there or making it forbidden is only going to move them desire it more or not know how to navigate it. I am more for teaching, discussing, realizing the good, bad, etc it brings and teaching my kids how to manage it properly.

Forbidding it seems like it will make it worse.

 

[gianmarco]

I voted slightly opposed to not allowing. My reasoning is that I think it's the parents job to educate their children about social media and how to deal with it. It will be part of their lives. It is not ever going away so pretending it isn't there or making it forbidden is only going to move them desire it more or not know how to navigate it. I am more for teaching, discussing, realizing the good, bad, etc it brings and teaching my kids how to manage it properly.

Forbidding it seems like it will make it worse.

This is a strawman argument.

No one is pretending it is going away. Putting an age restriction on something doesn't equate to that argument at all. Same way we don't pretend alcohol isn't there or gambling isn't there. And they can certainly figure out how to navigate it at the age of 13+ or 16+ or whatever if they are able to figure out how to navigate it at 8 years old. We all figured it out and we didn't grow up with social media.

We don't let kids drive at the age of 12 because we pretend it's going away. It's because children are not just small adults, their brains aren't fully developed at younger ages, and there's certain things that require more maturity and ability to comprehend right/wrong and responsibility so we delay their accessibility.

Just because certain 13 year olds are big enough and capable of actually driving a vehicle doesn't mean it's safe or the right things to do at that age. So we put it off. Same goes for alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, voting, and any other number of things.

The argument is that children under a certain age aren't mature/responsible enough to handle social media. It creates addiction and can cause harm, mental illness, bullying, etc that older children are at least better able to comprehend and navigate. I agree with that argument based on what we're seeing. Just because a 14 year old got $50 for his birthday doesn't mean he should be placing bets on the whether or not the Knicks are going to cover the spread tonight. They simply don't have the mental maturity to make good decisions when it comes to that even though they COULD do it.

And while we can never stop anything with age restrictions (kids still have underage sex, drink alcohol, etc.), that doesn't mean not to act in their overall best interest when said activity is known to be detrimental at younger ages. And social media is showing us to be that case.