dsvnasd

I didn’t think that was your point so I did misunderstand it. I agree this is a concern but I’m not sure how it’s totally avoided. 12% of high school seniors graduate at 19.

In any case, I’m probably not the right person to determine the cutoff criteria. Whatever the boundary, that’s going to be a rough time for those going through it.

> You have to recognize when the system is making a problem worse than it naturally is.

The irony. How can you be certain that it's not social media making "problem worse than it naturally is"? Many people believe that social media is.

As someone who was not particularly visible, and was not invited to every party, I am very aware that "there are plenty of situations where someone gets invited to something if and only they are visible to others and easy to invite". Is "not being on social media" really all that different than "not being on the <insert sport> team"? The same arguments apply. Easier to see and invite teammates, more social cache, etc.

In any case, if all teens were off social media then it would not be a determining factor, and I'm sure alternative systems would emerge for inviting people to places.

Actually this could be a really good analogy on many levels.

For example: Comparing the THC levels of the 60s to the THC levels today, and the potency social media of the 90s to the social media today seems appropriate. I mean one can only do so much social media over a slow modem on a home that has a single shared phone line.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2396976-is-cannabis-tod...

> Simply making it illegal

The problem is, what is "it"? Are applications like WhatsApp and iMessage social media? They seem to be significant sources of teenage angst but they are also incredibly useful tools. What about Hacker News? Is it social media?

How do you prove it?

> Besides, the cat is out of the bag.

That's what I was thinking too.

I am not sure what the value is in severely regulating half a dozen or so companies when work arounds are so easily to implement. Maybe as a stop gap solution while we figure out long term solutions (which the government has a horrible track record on).

But for any long term solution we would first have to define what social media even is, and in a way that's testable in court. Don't run away from the hard things, but wow, that's hard.

With any regulation there are pro/cons. You've highlighted a con but there are significant pros to overcome.

I grew up in a pre internet world. We had "negative effects being left out of a social circles" then too. Social circles being hard is not going away regardless of how this decision lands.