Social Media Bans for Kids

I doubt this would go anywhere. You're almost admitting to bad parenting. It should be widely known by now social media is harmful to kids. Many people restrict this until late teenage years.Also, before social media there were lots of ways of socializing online. Social media just made it extremely addictive but it's just a matter of uninstalling and doing something else.

I am guessing kids / child here means or include Teens? Because if they are not hooked to Facebook ( which I dont know any kids or teens are ) they will still be hooked to instagram. Which many kids and Teens do use. And increasingly they are going over to TikTok. Although instagram is fighting back.And even if you ban them from using ALL meta product. They will still be hooked to something else. Forum ( That is a form of Social Media as well ), other media for celebrity news or whatever

It's not my deficiencies as a parent that make me support this law. It's the need for a reverse network effect. That's how social media works. If everyone else has it, your kid wants it. If no one else has it, your kid doesn't want it. Social media has been found harmful to children, like smoking or alcohol. For many reasons, it should be limited for children.

You dont have kids, do you. Seeing them being pushed out of entire school community due to higher principles is heartbreaking to say at least, this is place from which teen suicides come from. Parents usually cave in the pressure.I would go and even claim I would ban all current social media platforms below 18. Ther are simply not enough protections, consistently, its place ripe for abuse and tons abuse is happening every day as we speak. I know we will keep our own kids off this for a

Banning is useless, as you say it's part of the world now. However, there's something to be said about delaying or reducing their use of it. Too many children are getting social media very young (8 years old) and they are constantly connected to their peers, which is harmful. They need time away (both mentally and physically) from their peers and more time with family (rather than being ON social) to be able to develop as an individual.

Related Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16 (525 points, 20 days ago, 567 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071310

You're not the only one!I also believe that this is a Big Deal™ that we need to take seriously as a nation. I have yet to see any HN commentator offer a robust pro-social media argument that carries any weight in my opinion. The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part.As an added bonus, this latest legislation removes the issue of &qu

I see a lot of comments here arguing age requirements are overreach and these decisions should be left to the parents. To those presenting such arguments, do you think that applies to other activities as well? What about smoking/drinking/firearms? Pornography? Driving?I haven't researched the topic of social media's effect on young people, but the common sentiment I encounter is that it's generally harmful, or at least capable of harm in a way that is difficult to iso

It seems to me that children "get" the problem with Facebook & Instagram better than their parents. To quote an 11-year old boy speaking with FB internal research, "Facebook is for old people."[1] Maybe we should implement an age ceiling on use of social media!1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology&

This is getting ridiculous, if you believe that social media is an unequivocal bad then ban it for everyone. Adults have no more defenses against its evils than children. It doesn't become less harmful the moment you turn 16/18/21. Laws voted on by group A that only affect group B should be under high scrutiny because there's no natural feedback mechanism— "it seems like a good idea but I wouldn't to live under it."