Well, I don’t agree with any laws like that, they’re all silly.

Nobody under 16 should be on social media for their own good, but it’s their parent’s job to prevent them from rotting their brains, not some governing body.

▲

latexr 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> but it’s their parent’s job to prevent them from rotting their brains, not some governing body.

The counter argument is that even if you want to do that as a parent, it’s hard when all your kid’s friends use the thing you’re prohibiting. It makes their life harder, and yours too in the process.

It’s worth noting the first initiatives to gate kids from social media did come from parents, who organised locally and collectively agreed on a course of action.

▲

cooper_ganglia 5 hours ago | parent [-]

As a parent, you have direct control over who your kid’s friends are.

We used to say, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?”.

Now we say, “Well, the kids are going to jump off a cliff anyway, I can’t stop them, so the government should make a law about it!”

I don’t think that’s the way to handle things. Parents who are bad at parenting will raise kids that fraternize with kids who jump off of cliffs. Maybe theirs will too, one day. Unfortunate, but the kids at the top of the cliff, who were actually raised, will excel.

Social Darwinism > Government Regulation

▲

skithrowyouknow 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You do not have control of who your childrens' friends are unless you spend all hours with them. And most people are happy nobody can legally sell smokes, booze, and drugs to 12 year olds.

	▲	cooper_ganglia 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Surely you can see how requiring ID for a physical cigs, drugs, and alcohol purchases is different from requiring ID to use a website? “Think of the children” is the exact tool fascists use to erode liberties. Governments worldwide salivate at the idea of having a registry of what every individual is doing online at any given moment.