[xipix]

We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law. It's how we stand together as a society, otherwise one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.

The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.

[wavemode]

> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.

Yeah but, there's no precedent for regulating something that parents are opting into (by buying their kids devices and then turning them loose with no oversight).

We should be punishing liquor stores when a parent willingly buys their child alcohol, then?

[sajithdilshan]

I disagree

> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents.

So what is wrong with that? parenting is not equal among all parents in UK and why should only this aspect be normalized?

> The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.

This is a hypocritical statement. For children we are more than willing to normalize and enforce rules as us adults wants because we assume all children grow up at same age and same rates, but when it comes to policing adults, the line is gray and more difficult because everyone is different.

[xipix]

"Can I learn to drive?" "No, you're not old enough" "But my friend is already driving and he's 12" "OK, when you turn 12 you can too."

[docdeek]

> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents

That’s how it has been for most everything. Someone else’s parents let their kids watch TV on a school night, or stay up past 10pm, or has a curfew of 1am instead of midnight, or lets them drink soda at the dinner table. The response from my parents to me, and from me to my kids, has always been to point out that families are different, they have different rules, and that in this house we do X.

[squigz]

> We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law

> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.

In those other vices, we have various other regulations in order to reduce their harm as much as possible. Yet, there has been no similar push for the purported harm done by social media - or, apparently, the Internet in general. It's like we've tried nothing and are surprised it's still an issue.

[pfortuny]

> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parent.

And that would be a great oportunity to teach that child that those measures exist for a reason.

The government is and must always be a subsidiary actor.

Not every risk must be addressed, otherwise zebra crossings would not exist, or driving would be prohibited.

[xipix]

Driving is prohibited until a certain age. Parents don't get to discuss this with their child and decide when they're old enough.

[danaris]

If we need regulation of "this harm", then what we need to be regulating is the social media networks, not the children (and adults!) that use them.

We need to be banning algorithmic feeds. We need to be banning promotion of hateful content. We need to be banning moderation that is biased against marginalized groups, or against criticism of the platform.

If they weren't being subjected to feeds specifically designed to create maximum "engagement" with fear, hate, and self-doubt, most young people using social media would be interacting in similar ways to how they interact offline. Perhaps there would be a little less inhibition due to the feeling of anonymity, but overall, anything harmful they might be doing or saying to each other on there is very similar to what they would be doing or saying to each other in person, regardless of what social media you let them access.