Depressingly bad argument that seems to say: we think it’s bad for children and adults, but we don’t ban it for adults so we shouldn’t ban it for children.
It’s more accurately: but we _cannot_, or maybe even, do not have the political will to ban it for adults. The point is that it’s politically easy to ban something for those who cannot vote for you.
I don’t think (could be wrong) the argument is don’t ban social media for children because we don’t ban it for adults… I think the argument is it is easier politically to regulate behavior of a population that doesn’t vote and is not us.
English societies have a long history of regulating the behavior of others - see English Poor Laws.
It’s an interesting perspective at least, I hadn’t thought of the social media ban in that way.
I happen to think we should still ban bad things (smoking, drinking, gambling, and probably social media) for kids. But I appreciate the argument.
It's not what it says, it's more: discussion on what to ban/regulate should include all the population at risk (so in this case, the entire population), not just people at non-voting age. It doesn't even say that whe should apply the same regulation to children and adults, but pretending that something is harmful up until 16, then doesn't need any kind of regulation, is just pretending
