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

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.