> The whistleblower allegations and hearings were mostly about the impact facebook products have on kids. So where's the strong evidence? Is 15% of teens repor

> The whistleblower allegations and hearings were mostly about the impact facebook products have on kids. So where's the strong evidence? Is 15% of teens reporting bad feelings the big headliner? Surveys showing weak correlations with depression? What evidence do you have to even mention Facebook in the same breath as other strictly controlled products? You keep pointing to whistleblower allegations and hearings like that's evidence of anything except perhaps Congress' apparently infinite appetite for political grandstanding and an ex-employee's apparently infinite appetite for authoritarian regulation. Nicotine didn't become a controlled substance because 15% of teen smokers reported feeling bad about themselves or tended to be more depressed on average. The bar should be even higher when you consider that Facebook is a platform for speech which has more protections for good reason. > I believe some form of expanded COPPA laws for children under 16 wouldn't hurt. Yes it would hurt, it would hurt business and it would hurt the choice of children under 16. COPPA is already extremely onerous and in practice amounts to a ban for most services. What's your industry, I wonder? I'm sure there are plenty of laws I can think of that "wouldn't hurt". Unsurprisingly, "wouldn't hurt" is not the standard by which a free society legislates.