> I can be there to take him to the hospital, talk to him about it, etc.

Nanny state! Let him take himself to medical facilities, and deal with the consequences himself instead of interfering

HELL Let's ban hospitals, they're just interfering in the natural order of life.

Real talk: I know that those are strawmen and you most definitely think that where you draw the line is right for you and your family (assuming that you have one), but the reality is that the line gets moved a LOT as children grow - your line might be great if you have developed a good relationship with your son, and he's received a good social education from his friends/network and he's over a certain age.

It fails very quickly if he's, say, 5 years old and/or he's had no friends that model good/bad behaviour and/or you and he are human meaning that communication, interpretation, and any hint of resentment lies underneath (keep in mind that teenagers are geared to fight/be angry/dislike their parents, for the specific reason that it motivates them to leave home and begin their own lives)

▲

Extropy_ a day ago | parent [-]

I like your libertarian approach. You're right the line can move a lot. Of course, my support/interference would (hypothetically speaking) be different on a situation to situation basis, my reasoning is simply love. If I love someone, like my son, I want them to be free to make mistakes and hurt themselves, and certainly if they start hurting others I would seek to stop that. I think it's important, though, to be there for people, nut the line does change like you pointed out. So I'm really not sure- my decisions would be situationally dependent. I'm still inclined to say that prohibition is ineffective and potentially more dangerous for some people

	▲	awesome_dude 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Without wishing to completely sidetrack the discussion... > I like your libertarian approach. Their idea is to prohibit government... What we are seeing in Australia is a community that has decided that the best course of action is to say that children under the age of 16 are generally too young to have the skills to deal with some social media. You yourself are comfortable with the idea that a 5 year old is far too young for social media (and kids that age /can/ work devices to access social media if they want) The question really is, at what age should we draw the line. 16 is arbitrary, but the ones most able to manage the interactions are the ones that will have the skills for circumventing the blanket ban, and the ones that aren't that savvy, won't.