Polling shows that social media bans are overwhelmingly popular. This article is for canada but it holds true for the US. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/01/majority-of-americans-support-banning-social-media-for-kids-under-16/
Just wanted to share because I’ve seen people act like it’s some anti-democratic conspiracy that these (bad) laws are going into place.
Notably none of the questions they asked were about age verification though. I support a minimum age for social media too, but I don’t support age verification measures.
The issue is that everyone thinks computers operate on magic, so they just ignore the idea that there might be practical limitations on doing the things that they want to do.
In reality there is no means of age verification that isn’t also a form of identity verification. And if you asked people “Should everyone have to hand over their government ID to private companies in order to use the internet”, you’d see much lower numbers of positive responses.
This is why opinion polling for policy is garbage. Would you like to have [nice thing]? Overwhelming support. Would you like to raise taxes to pay for [nice thing]? Overwhelming opposition.
*laws are just spells that wizards cast
Enforcement? What is that? /s
I support guidance and recommendation of age groups and time limits etc for guardians to consult. Just as having a drinking age never stopped those under it from drinking. Realistically this will be far less effective but more intrusive and abusive.
Give the guardians the tools, time, and guidance to do their jobs. There’s definitely no legitimate use for laws and legislation restricting it though. The countries that have already passed the laws are already proving it doesn’t work. Why anyone else thinks it will be different or that they can do better is beyond me. Unless of course they don’t think that and it’s never been about that.
Yes it absolutely does.
I think laws could be used to put some stronger responsibilities on the parents. Unfortunately, some of them don’t care whether their children are on social media or what they do on there at all. So when something happens to a child who was too young to join social media, parents would bear some responsibility for that. Guidance is great, but not everyone will take that offer. I’m not in favor of abolishing the minimum drinking age (which is 14 here btw) either.
The parents who wouldn’t be responsible. Aren’t going to be responsible just because there’s laws. They never have been. And realistically it’s just going to punish otherwise decent ones who due to circumstances beyond their knowledge failed.
Make considerations for child neglect and endangerment charges considering such things when it’s appropriate. That’s workable/palatable. But the state policing basic social interaction is dystopian as fuck and screaming for abuse. No thanks. The state isn’t worthy of that sort of trust in the first place. Not one of them. Leave it to the families and communities, focus on helping them to succeed. It’s cheaper and more effective.