I get where you're coming from, and it's a nice thought that you could simply "go nuclear" and forbid a teenager from using social media to avoid this kind of thing.

But if you did this you would also be denying your kid access to virtually their entire cultural universe. How would you feel if as a kid you weren't allow to see any of your friends outside of school? Watch any of the same movies, music, or play any of the same games as your peers? It would almost be another form of abuse in and of itself. Unfortunately your suggestion isn't really tenable, just ask any actual parents of teenagers if they could imagine taking this route.

Western parenting has gone completely off the rails if people are comparing banning kids from using social media to a “form of abuse.”

Human beings don’t have fully developed brains until age 25. Controlling kids’ interactions with other humans with underdeveloped brains is like the most critical part of parenting.

> Controlling kids’ interactions with other humans with underdeveloped brains is like the most critical part of parenting.

Do you have kids? Can you explain what you mean by this?

I’ve got three. Studies show that the strongest influence on kids are their peers. Problem is that kids are dumb and irrational—again, undeveloped frontal cortex and with teenagers, hormones—especially in groups. As a result, parents need to carefully control both who their kids socialize with, and the nature of those social interactions. Social media compounds those problems.

Permissive parenting that treats kids like little adults and over-emphasizes cultivation of their individual relationships and preferences does them a disservice. It’s like letting a drunk person drive a car.

> Studies show that the strongest influence on kids are their peers.

Could you please share? The ones I'm finding say that parents are the strongest influence [1] [2] [3] [4].

> Permissive parenting that treats kids like little adults and over-emphasizes cultivation of their individual relationships and preferences does them a disservice.

Parenting that attempts to "carefully control" interactions until their 25th birthday seems like a disservice of equal size. I met some of these kids when I got to University. They didn't fare very well without their parents to control everything. As with most things, the answer is likely in the middle.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826572/

[2] https://blogs.iadb.org/desarrollo-infantil/en/parental-behav...

[3] https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se06.h...

[4] https://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/issue17/green.h...

> Controlling kids’ interactions with other humans with underdeveloped brains

Do you control their interactions when they go to school? Or literally anywhere without you?

There's no need for this, since parents entrust schools to supervise their children (read: control their interactions) during the school day. Outside of school, making sure you know whom your child is hanging out with, where they are, establishing a curfew, and other such limits are all generally hallmarks of good parenting.

There are obviously limits to the degree to which parents can/should control their kids, but not allowing a kid to interact with strangers on the internet falls well within them. Knowing (and controlling) which of your child's peers they are communicating with is no different from keeping tabs on which home your child is visiting (and staying in touch with friends' parents wherever needed), or which of their friends they're hanging out with at the mall.

I was compelled to chime in on this thread because it resonates with me, personally. I'm an Indian raised by immigrant parents, and growing up one of the most stark observations I made was just how coddled my American friends could sometimes come across — they could more or less get whatever they wanted or do whatever they wanted. My parents established boundaries over the kinds of games I played, whom I hung out with, and the activities I partook in. Not being able to get what you want sometimes, or do what the "cool kids" are doing is just a part of growing up for lots of people. I wouldn't call it "abuse", and that kind of discipline definitely set me up for success in the real world. I continue to have a great relationship with my parents, and intend to raise my children with the same kind of discipline.

This is why parents choose private school, or “good schools.” It’s a proxy for controlling your kids’ social circle. Mine are too young to go anywhere without me, but when I was growing up my parents insisting on personally meeting anyone I’d hang out with alone. They discouraged going to other kids’ houses and would insist on having get together at our house where they could keep an eye on us.

Going back a generation, my dad—who grew up in a village in Bangladesh—noted that other men in the village would notice him during his several mile long walk to school. If he did anything out of sorts word would have gotten back to his father.

Everything you list still exists and is not social media so I'm not really seeing all the parallels here. Also I never said where I draw the line because I don't know. But if I had a 13 year old daughter it would probably be something like you are not posting pictures of yourself online or the phone is gone for 30 days.

Sure, perhaps I was reading too much into your comment. As another comment suggests, there is a big spectrum between disallowing social media entirely and allowing your child unrestricted access. The example you give here makes complete sense. I would just hesitate to ban it entirely in the same way I would hesitate to ban the things I listed entirely.

I think there must be some middle ground between "no life" and underage girls bouncing around on the global Internet and getting venmo for pics by grown men.

Isn't the same more or less the case for every girl who works in cinema or TV or music? Or for that matter school cheerleaders, etc.? The veneer is thicker or thinner depending on the exact medium, but there's no getting away from the possibility that creepy men might be looking. I'm not certain the nuclear option here (ban participating in online spaces until majority) is the right one. I think some kind of tabulation of pros and cons is necessary.

(That beings said, it seems like after such a tabulation this case might be one of those that ends on the cutting floor.)

My cousin's daughter was a super popular teenage social media star. From what I can tell from the family's accounts, the parts of the audience that were creepy men didn't much bother the family, rather it contributed a large part of the narcissistic supply in total. There wasn't any shameful aspect of "whoring out" - the affect felt more empowering, like domination over that pitiful part of their audience. Either way I agree, if your social media presence makes you feel bad you should drop it and find something that adds meaning to your life.

She's an adult now and sounds like is living a healthy enough life given the trauma of having unlimited money and being young.

Videogames are a great hobby, both online and off. As a child and teen I played Carmageddon, Duke 3D, Doom, and all manner of games that would've shocked my parents if they'd been paying closer attention. Younger friends were also playing Mortal Kombat and chatting on IRC.

Ultimately, as long as parents teach the kids to have healthy boundaries and critical thinking they'll be alright.

This teen selling her image directly to creeps strikes as borderline enablement of some mentally ill folks. Yet plenty of parents, mine included, would think nothing of having their kids model professionally.

I understand keeping adult men out of a teenager's social media presence but the point where you lost me is the idea that adolescents seeking the attention of the opposite sex be that online or offline is comparable to "whoring herself out"?

Like what do you think teenagers do in the offline world? What were you looking at when you were 15 or 16?