The other poster's "discrimination" argument is kind of stretching it, but I feel like the core of the issue is that social media has a lot of positive aspects, and we should at least consider the relative significance of positive and negative effects of social media before banning it altogether.
How much do kids lose by not being able to communicate through social media? Is it more or less than how much they gain from such protection?
In fact, it's to do with autonomy and freedom of choice of children during their teenage years. I am opposed to coercive education and want to give children more choice in what they can do during their teenage years. Such as choosing their subjects at school.
I believe that teenage children are being micromanaged, they are being developmentally delayed by the restrictions imposed by adults, especially in this day and age. They might be exhibiting the same behaviors as a micromanaged subordinate in the workplace does.
And I am campaigning for children's rights because this micromanagement has severely affected me personally, and I do not want other people to go through the same.
It's "almost" like you're making an underage sex argument.
In fact, to not suspect that one would have to give you a lot of credit.
What do you think, are internet strangers going to give you the benefit of the doubt? Yes or no?
Children are restricted from some things because their minds aren't fully developed.
Downstream from that hardest of facts is general environment that commonly presents dangers to development, a unique vulnerability to adult criminal predation, an inability to give informed consent, and an inability to make independent judgement in service of their long-term welfare.
In contrast and in light of the above points, there are individuals like yourself whose aim is to undermine child protection.
Rational adults ask: to what end?