Or requiring school busses to have swing out stop signs and making it illegal to pass them when they're deployed.

Actual "protect children" laws don't get talked about because absolutely nobody has a problem with them.

How is that even a comparison?

Modern* protect children bills would be more accurate.

The playbook these days is to use children, terrorism, etc to justify something that fails to address that problem and pushes some other agenda.

This has been true anyway in the US and UK. I have no clue how true this is in France and I won't pretend to know, but from some other comments on the potential implementation could be better than what we've seen so far. I hope so, anyway.

Most parents either don't know how to do that, or don't care enough to stop their kids from using social media, despite how harmful it is for society as a whole, and especially children, and since all their friends are on social media, a child can credibly argue that they need to use it to maintain their social life. If social media is banned for under 16's, then children would have to communicate with normal chat apps. Also I know from experience that parental controls can easily be bypassed by a dedicated child.

A propely implemented (as in ZKP verification that gives no information to the service other than the age category) age gate is a good thing in my opinion, because at some point some systemic problems are better served by systemic solutions. We don't let parents decide if their kids should smoke or drink alchohol either.

Is something nobody discusses out loud is the fact that literally in you internet service where users can post is covered by these laws, they're not microtargeted at Instagram or anything like that. Also politicians explicitly say things like this is meant to stop transgenderism or this is about Gaza out loud

I appreciate the nuance. Thanks for a thoughtful answer.

You’ll see from different answers I’ve made to the reactions on my first comment that I also approach this with nuance.

I know many people that work in government. Not the US government, but across Europe. I can’t answer for the US government. But I can tell you first hand that the people I know aren’t in it to gain some kind of Orwellian control.

When I last spoke to a U.K. MP about this he was in fact understanding the complexity here, and the lens that many people want to see it banned and many see it as governmental overreach. Decent, hard working people are trying to balance these tough choices where I live. I’m sorry if that isn’t the case where you live.

The absolute binary inability for children to access social media shouldn’t be the litmus test for whether we should try.

Some children manage to buy lottery tickets or gamble for real money online. Some manage to buy alcohol even when they’re underage. Some manage to buy cigarettes. Inadequate parents will even sometimes support this.

But we aim to create an environment where that is difficult. And by doing so we shape culture. And culture shapes patterns. My aim isn’t to remove the harm social media perpetrated on children, but to reduce it. All law works like this - speed limits are routinely broken but most drive sensibly.

Buy a dumb phone and make them feel ostracized from everyone else lol. Spoken like someone who isn't gen Z.

Let's say you do use a dumb phone. What about everyone else? Others have to make a lot of concessions in order to communicate with you in a group project for example.Best case scenario the group does its communication over social media and calls you directly. You're going to miss out a lot on communication.

There's also some aspect of "followers = clout". Basically what I'm trying to say is expecting your child to be OK taking a dumb phone to school while seeing everyone else with one may have a dramatic effect.

“parental controls”

Yeah ... I was the kid that knew how to bypass those and "helped" other kids out in that regard.

Lol. Yes it’s that simple.

Look, I’ve raised 4 kids. I run OPNsense with filters. I’ve enabled parental controls all on their mobile phone connections. My kids were and will be the last that got a smart phone in their year. I’m an active member of smartphone free childhood in the UK; I’ve engaged with U.K. members of Parliament on the topic. I’ve worked for tech giants whose sole purpose it is to create “habits” ie addiction in amongst children. Regardless I’m not talking about just my kids, I work in education and engage with multiple schools on the topic.

You come back to me when you’ve taken kids through the landscape they exist in today. What’s more, it is possible to verify age online in a way that doesn’t enable governments to see what sites you visit (not that they can’t already get that your ISP); of course I’m against government oversight of everyone’s internet habits. But both can be achieved; anonymity and age verification is possible.

It sounds like a pretty one sided view you’ve got there and maybe, just maybe, it could do with some nuance.

I haven’t got the foggiest idea what you mean. I’ve expressed my opinion. You choose to call it propaganda because you don’t like it.

You’re a charming fellow aren’t you?

Consider for a second if my position came from knowledge and wisdom, rather than knee jerk. Consider if you understand all nuances here. Change your tone. Then maybe we can engage on this.