When the addictive factor is deliberately manufactured into a product (AKA engagement), the company absolutely bears some (IMO, a large amount of) responsibility.
So, every product from every company ever. That's the goal of marketing, after all. Why not extend this law for everyone? Why can't I sue Lego because my son keeps insisting I buy them, or why can't I sue Budweiser because I keep finding myself buying their booze?
It's an unfairly targeted law to win easy political points, because everyone hates big social right now, but everyone loves Lego.
And considering the forum, a credible argument for everyone to sacrifice some of their freedom needs to clear a way higher bar.
If this law isn’t perfect and has some unintended side effects, we can adjust and stay flexible.
Being an engaged parent is great fun, but it's intensive. Trying to be an engaged parent while juggling a heavy workload is especially difficult; people find solace at the office because almost anything is easier. In an era where work follows you everywhere - I work past midnight most nights when the kids are sleeping and for parts of most weekends - the tension is hard to escape.
I don't think most people don't want or resent their kids, just that it's another thing pulling you in more directions.
Do you have kids of your own?
When we were online we used to talk on zoom/Google Meet whatever. I didn't feel any loss not being with my friends on social media.
Having kids is literally hardwired into most people’s brains, even if it’s an illogical choice for them.
If they start requiring some sort of government issued ID for age verification for the services in question, those services might as well go up in flames. It's easier just to find or create an alternative that isn't affected by the legislation
Or maybe they like the idea of having adult children? I really don't know.
But I know so many people who don't actually like spending time with their children. I get some people actually have to work a lot but it's a shallow analysis to blame it on that (IMHO).
So expectations tend to be super-high. Their children often have to go to Ivy League schools. They themselvves need to save north of $500k+ to pay for that blue blood education. These people will bemaon the high cost of raising children while living in a 7000 sq ft 6 bedroom house with their 2 children, paying $50k/year to send each of those children to private schools and so on.
And while you can argue those things have value (I actually think that's debatable at best), the net effect is that these people actually seem to spend little time with their children. After awhile it occurs to you that's the point.
I feel like an awful lot of people are motivated by living vicariously through their children too. "I'm going to give my child the opportunities I never had". That sort of thing.
As far as social media goes, it's easy to say "don't allow your children on social media" but my guess is it's mostly childless people saying that. Those growing up now are connected socially to their peers through these networks. No social media is a form of forced social exclusion that's pretty all-encompassing. It's a hard problem.
I'd say, if anything, the problem starts way earlier than that. I actually think in an ideal world a child wouldn't even see an electronic screen (TV, phone, tablet, computer) before they're like 8 years old. That's pretty unrealistic though.
One issue with social media is because of US laws most networks are age-restricted. Some to 18 and over. Others to 13 and up. We all know that people lie and use them anyway. Where does responsibility for this lie? With the companies? The parents? I really don't know.
It does seem easy to scapegoat companies for these issues though.