only parents can decide for their own children, so you can do whatever you want for your own children

> only parents can decide for their own children

Voters are collectively deciding for all of our children. And there are absolutely group dynamics that require cooperation. It’s why rich communities ban phones in classrooms while in poor communities, the one family that tries doing it alone is probably going to be less successful.

Again, I’m not saying you’re fundamentally wrong. Just that this debate has been had and the polling is massively in favor of bans for under-14 year olds and strongly in favor for under-18s. (And to the degree I’ve connected with electeds, the folks calling in and writing were almost 100% one way. The civically-engaged electorate is practically at consensus.)

Lolberts often underestimate the power and utility of collective action.

> Lolberts

Huh?

Slang is sometimes in UrbanDictionary [1]

"lolbertarian - A disparaging term for internet libertarians, used jokingly or not."

[1] - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lolberts

lolberts know the IQ of a median voter and how federal big government abuses its power without delivering on what was promised

we are not collectivist/communist country to have a "muh gubernment" rule and dictate over every little thing.

I want government bureacrats, empowered by the stupid median voter, to be as far away as possible from things that I (and any other parent) are perfectly capable of solving by ourselves.

I want more freedom

> I want more freedom

Sure. Call your electeds next time this comes up. Right now, the ship has sailed. Jurisdictions are debating methodology.

There's also broad popular support for raising taxes on millionaires, legal access to abortion, and cheaper healthcare, all of which are at least as important as the issue of kids using social media without restrictions. If the premise is that we should solve them with whatever solutions we can come up with unless everyone agrees on something better, I'll look forward to the upcoming laws that tax capital gains the same as income, enshrine a woman's right to choose, and to establish Medicare for all. When those all take effect, I'll accept your solution to mandate ID checks on every device I own, but until then, this line of argument is nonsensical.

>These are broadly popular

The idea is broadly popular but the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits.

But you knew that which is why you construct this rhetorical motte-and-bailey about it being "broadly popular"

> the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits

Source?

> But you knew that

I genuinely don’t. I don’t think many electeds do, either.

The playing field is currently lots of angry non-technical parents looking at Silicon Valley leadership not doing anything remotely reassuring when it comes to taking care of their children. And then a good fraction of them being drawn into a proper pantheon of idiot conspiracy theories. (They’re really stupid.) I would love to see polls considering implementation details because that would at least imply somebody is thinking of them.

Right now, honest answer, I don’t think anyone in government is. Electeds see an easy win—or more accurately, a patchwork of angry, mobilized voters they can scoop into their election-year campaigns with a rushed-out bill that pins them to the issue but which neither they nor those voters really have the technical chops to parse.

Best case, we get tripe. Worst, the process gets hijacked.