Sure, but is using the full force of the State, in the process tying all online activity to government IDs, really the best alternative to having a harder conversation with little Johnny and Sally?

> The problem with "let the parents decide" is that if all other kids in the neighborhood have phones and are on social media then unless you want your kid to grow up with no friends you don't have a choice but to let your kid also use social media.

Sorry, no, this is just abdicating your responsibility as a parent. "It's hard" isn't an excuse for throwing your hands up and handing your responsibility over to the state.

In the US parents can mostly give their kids porn, guns, and alcohol at home. Wherein the drug isn't itself illegal you are for practical purposes also able to give your kids drugs.

Being shown to cause harm is also a meaninglessly low standard. Bathtubs, pools, and bikes can cause harm. You would need to show an actually useful standard. Lets propose will cause an unacceptable level of harmn that cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means.

I don't buy the argument that you are unacceptably harmed because you aren't capable of denying your kid social media nor do I buy the idea that social media couldn't be regulated to be less shitty and harmful.

Exposing children to pornography is illegal federally and in all states, treated as distribution of obscene material or child exploitation with no parental exemptions. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2252) prohibits such exhibition to minors under 18, carrying severe penalties like imprisonment.

So precedent exists. Social media is at least as harmful as porn.

Has anyone ever in life been prosecuted for allowing their teen watch boobs on the internet? I mean if you at any time prior to 18 have a computer in their room you absolutely know that you basically provided an adult portal.

Before the internet as I kid I rewired our houses cable wiring and stole my dad's dirty magazines. Pretty sure damn near everyone saw adult material prior to 18.

> The problem with "let the parents decide" is that if all other kids in the neighborhood have phones and are on social media then unless you want your kid to grow up with no friends you don't have a choice but to let your kid also use social media.

This is why you find a circle of friends and like mind neighbors who raise their kids in a manner that makes you comfortable. It’s never 1:1, but it doesn’t have to be you against the entire world either. (Though it can certainly feel like that at times)

> This is why you find a circle of friends

Think about EU standardizing USB-C for charging. Many people were up in arms: Do you want the state to decide these things? However, personally I benefited. Now I have to carry around only one charger for all my devices.

If the govt standardizes non-smart phones for kids we will all benefit.

I would be completely down with kids only allowed to own flip phones without apps or internet. Phone calls and texts, bring back the infamous T9, kids under 16 are not allowed to be sold a non-flip phone.

Of course this doesn’t address tablets, netbooks etc.

So the actual answer is good parenting, which I posit is one of the bigger problems in the US today and has been for a long time.

Or we keep pretending that pushing education and passing laws about cell phones will somehow be a substitute for bad parenting. The US has been doing that for a long time as well, isn’t working.

At what cost, though? Most laws have some sort of benefit, but it always comes at a cost. Are we all willing to pay that cost?

Parents actually legally can give their kids alcohol and guns in most states. Porn I’m not sure about. You can’t give anyone drugs, unless they’re legal in which case you can give them to your kids.