4 ms·
I've long wondered why we haven't had a federal level (or even some state level) bans on social media for minors at this point? It seems like the effects are we
by brightball 3y ago
I've long wondered why we haven't had a federal level (or even some state level) bans on social media for minors at this point? It seems like the effects are well established, more widespread than any drug has ever been and probably more severe.
My kids aren't allowed to use social media and we are "the mean parents" now because of it since "everybody else's parents let them." Some of these kids were on Instagram in 4th grade. It took years of explaining what we were protecting them from before they started to really get it, seeing their friends at school who's entire life is on a 4 inch screen.
They understand now, but the pressure is very real.
- nradov 3y agoThe Supreme Court has generally allowed certain limited restrictions on media content targeted towards children. But an outright ban would probably run afoul of the First Amendment. I expect the vagueness doctrine would also present an obstacle. How could legislators even define social media in a sufficiently precise way? Is email or group chat social media?
- mcpackieh 3y agoWe already have an outright ban for children under 13 and that hasn't been shot down on First Amendment grounds. I don't see why that number couldn't be bumped to 18. (Technically it's not a complete ban because it has an exception for parental permission, but it's a de facto ban because companies don't want to deal with it.)
- Der_Einzige 3y agoIt’s a de jure ban because everyone lies about their age. Defacto means that they do real actual age verification