They should apologize by banning people under 25 from social media. It’s our generation’s version of selling cigarettes to kids.
Seriously, though, I was connecting to dial-up Bulletin Board Systems as a teenager, don't regret it at all, and would hate to deprive younger generations of the opportunity to go online. I ended up meeting a lot of older strangers, which overprotective helicopter parents would consider "dangerous" nowadays, but it was awesome, and I made a lot of friends.
Let's be real about the risks: statistically speaking, the most dangerous adults to a child are not strangers, they're the child's own parents.
Wouldn’t that make GP even better qualified to comment on the harms of social media use? :p
I certainly wouldn’t say that a pack-a-day smoker with lung cancer isn’t qualified to speak on the dangers of teen smoking. Quite the opposite in fact.
What does that have to do with "children harmed online"?
To be fair, the article itself opens by citing both the mental health allegations as well as "exploitation and abuse". Given we're dealing with an emotionally charged political hot button issue, it's safe to say these are intentionally muddy waters.
> Let's be real about the risks: statistically speaking, the most dangerous adults to a child are not strangers, they're the child's own parents
Depends on what danger you’re talking about.
"Everything that happens before the age of thirty-five is normal. After that, everything is a symptom of aging."
1. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
– Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt