how is it not relevant?

its an example of holding the parent responsible when the child breaks a law.

if accessing social media below 16 becomes illegal, this is a literal perfect example of holding parents accountable for their kids illegal activity. you can't possibly get more relevant.

there is no reason to shift parental responsibility onto tech companies. we have existing laws that can be used as templates for social media bans.

▲

contagiousflow 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct me if the US is different, but in the country I live in the onus is on the bar or liquor store if they sell alcohol to a child, not on the parent. Why would it be different for a social media ban?

▲

john_strinlai 8 hours ago | parent [-]

in your country, who is responsible if a 12 year old keeps getting drunk at home and the parents do nothing to prevent it?

do they go after the liquor store and just ignore the parents letting their kids drink?

▲

contagiousflow 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh man where I'm from they'd probably just laugh and put them to bed. jkjk

To be honest I did some brief searching and couldn't find anything! The parent will be liable if someone at your home drinks and drives home drunk, but I couldn't find anything specific about children consuming alcohol alone. It is only illegal to sell alcohol to minor, underage alcohol consumption is explicitly legal if supplied and supervised by an adult.

Now I'm sure if the child were to be young enough other child abuse laws could come into play, but it looks to be exceedingly rare.

▲

john_strinlai 8 hours ago | parent [-]

okay, so we now have: parent/homeowner responsible if someone drives home drunk, parent responsible if child gets drunk via abuse/neglect laws, and parent responsible for other crimes and damages caused by a child via dozens of individual laws.

is that enough examples to satisfy your initial request?

(which was a request for examples of the extremely broad statement: "We used to hold parents liable.")

	▲	contagiousflow 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So I asked for examples because there is a large difference between "We used to hold parents liable" meaning "we used to, socially, hold parents accountable for raising well adjusted humans" (which I would mostly disagree with) vs. "we used to persecute parents for normative laws" (which I mostly agree with). I know your point is talking about point 2, but I believe OPs comment was about point 1. But I also still don't know what the "used to" means in the original, do we not anymore?