The problem is that it really is the 14-21 group that where it has the most (and increasing) influence. They should have banned it for under 18.
Age 25-65 Coastal elites with luxury beliefs are equally as vulnerable as over 65s, but they hold the levers of actual power, which is far more dangerous.
In general, if someone comes along and says that someone else's rights should be shrunk, I think they should give up those same rights first.
You can just look at the US congress for how this isn't done as they frequently carve out exceptions for themselves and staffers.
We’re not talking about a lifetime ban on social media, the argument is certain kinds of things are gated from people under a certain age because we know those are harmful and can negatively impact your entire life going forward when not done conscientiously, and most people below a certain age do not yet possess the capacity to make an informed decision about their use.
Anyone they are responsible for could be forced off social media, etc...
This is just another case of some people deciding other people are too dumb to handle themselves or their kids. Further, I believe formally blaming the media companies lets everyone off the hook for their own actions.
In the general sense, Congress shouldn't be exempting itself from federal smoking bans, providing healthcare coverage, insider trading, lying before Congress, etc...
Many of us grew up in the offline-is-default time, but our cohort will age out. Then we’ll only be left with people who grew up with these technologies shaping their lives and perspectives, who have little sense for the alternative.
The window of time is closing for us in this cohort to use our understanding of what life was like without these technologies to advocate for a healthier environment for kids.
First it was indoor smoking, now it will be for everyone born after 2008 in the UK.