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.
It is about contoling the narritive around holocaust 2.0… They are gonna destroy the internet via trojan horse.
The reason for that huge level of support beyond neglectful parenting is the fact that these things cause harm. Shouldn’t we regulate the harm parts instead? Don’t they harm adults as well? Side note is this similar to prohibition?
It’s more similar to the current age restrictions on alcohol, although I do agree it’d be better to ban recommendation algorithms than an age gate.
I propose a social media age ban of 100.
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.
Just as having a drinking age never stopped those under it from drinking.
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.
The statistics appear to originate from from this pseudo study. All of the questions related to supposed “protection of children”, are framed within this context, without concretely considering the possible downsides; which strongly biases participants’ views. I also like how it typically reduces ages 18-54 to a single bracket (while statistics on page 18, demonstrating a trend of younger respondents, responding with reduced strength), and especially how it doesn’t consider minors to be Canadians (18- being asked absolutely nothing, at all…).
They didn’t poll under 18’s because it’s a political polling organisation and under-18’s don’t vote, I will say it is a bit strange they grouped the ages like that, since they usually don’t, it seems to have been done for the page layout.
The other study linked only has one non-leading question, and a majority still supports a ban.
I don’t support the current implementations but dismissing the specific poll is a bit silly.
But it naturally skews the results, especially when baby boomers and gen X alone constitute 57% of all respondents: which are typically less digitally literate, and therefore even less considerate of downstream consequences. Am I missing something? Because I cannot find any reference to another study, if that is what you mean. I’ve seen my share of pseudo studies that governments desperately cling onto, and by all means, this appears to be another one of them.
Makes me think of the classic yes minister national service scene, https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks
Excellent video, and very applicable indeed! :)
nice… putting that in my pocket
While support for restrictions on social media use is widespread, what people want is far different from what governments are implementating. For example, while a large majority support restrictions, a similarly large majority also believe said restrictions should be managed by parents. (Angus Reid, 2026) At a more practical level, these polls are also extremely vague about the restrictions, and I expect would receive very different results if the questions were about the policies governments are actually trying to implement. Having an “Are you over 18?” popup is still an age gate, but is a very, very different measure than the ID verification most governments want.
One can support a social media age ban (similar to the porn age bans that have existed since forever) while opposing the implementation proposal (invasive age verification needed for nearly everything).
From what I can tell, the definition of social media in the ban proposals amounts to the presence of algorithmic amplification of clickbait and outrage. It’s not too big a stretch to support banning that altogether, not just for minors. Traditional forums would still be fine, and Lemmy would be fine if it changed a few features that are arguably bad anyway.
I totally agree with that, I’d argue for either banning the negative aspects or doing that double-blind government-run verification I saw proposed that lets neither the government or the site have relevant information.
My point was that that stuff is a real concern for most people and that’s why those bills are being passed.
The move to curb access to social media for minors is fine.
If you stop to think about how it will be done, that’s where the problems lie, and that’s where basic functions of democracy (anonymity, transparency, and the right to know where our information is stored) are very much in danger.
Stop pushing the first part of the headline and omitting the rather serious nexts steps and implementation.
When you ask people if they want to hand over government ID to every website they access as an adult to prove they aren’t a teenager however support is going to drop really rapidly. Most adults on the internet have had basic details stolen on the internet, but having your passport and other biometrics routinely stolen alongside your bank details is going to open people up to a lot of identity theft attacks. They aren’t likely to support the actual implementation.
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.
Democracy at its worst is tyranny of the masses. It’s 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Classifying it as antidemocratic isn’t the right frame of mind. It’s more anti-freedom and anti-minor rights.
Here’s a psychologist that analyzes why this is happening and suggests alternative ideas based on research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzylD8yGUj4
90% polling to approve…who voted because I sure as heck didn’t and neither did anyone else on here, piefed, or reddit.
