Said it before, but to reiterate:
"Ban social media for under 16s"
"internet-free phones for children"
These ideas may have worked 20 years ago, but that horse bolted so long ago, it's galloped around the planet and is now approaching the stable from the opposite direction
/1
Fact is, a vast chunk of the modern childhood experience now involves the internet, being online, and phones. Whether you feel that's good or bad isn't the issue, but trying to remove that, via a heavy-handed top-down approach... that's not going to end well.
/2
How's it going to work? One option, they take phones and apps away from kids under 16 once the new law is on the books, meaning millions of tech-savvy teens suddenly have their social life/interests massively disrupted.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll just accept that without a fuss
/3
Alternatively, it's staggered, so only kids without a smartphone etc. when the law's in place are affected by it. So, they have to watch all their slightly-older peers enjoy something they can't have.
Again, I'm sure they'll accept that with maturity and grace
[cough]
/4
I mean, it's not like we don't have countless existing examples of what happens when you impose age limits on teens. Like, you officially can't drink alcohol or see sexual material if you're under-18, so obviously, no younger teen has ever done those things
[Sarcastic face]
/5
Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing. But anyone who has ever encountered a teen of any age should know that, if you don't want them doing something, telling them "I've decided you can't do that, and you have no say in the matter" is the *worst* possible strategy
/6
