Every country should set 16 as the minimum age for social media accounts

Core proposal and overall reactions

• Many agree that today’s gamified, algorithm-driven social media is harmful to teens and support minimum ages, some even preferring 18 or 21.
• Others oppose bans as overreach that restricts youth expression, likening it to creating a “digital underclass” and arguing it should be up to parents, not the state.
• A recurring view: these laws are a “band-aid” that avoid confronting deeper platform incentives that also harm adults.

Algorithms, ads, and platform design

• Strong focus on engagement-optimizing feeds as the real problem: infinite scroll, short-form video, outrage amplification, and profiling are seen as addictive and toxic.
• Multiple commenters argue to ban targeted advertising or ad-based monetization entirely, expecting many pathologies to diminish.
• Some want to outlaw algorithmic curation for all ages, reverting to chronological or explicit-subscription feeds; others add bans on photos or “shorts” for under‑16.

Age verification, privacy, and digital ID

• Major concern that age gates require pervasive identity checks and will be used to end anonymity and regulate political discourse, citing UK/Australia examples.
• Technical alternatives (zero-knowledge proofs, anonymous age tokens, device-bound digital IDs) are discussed, but many fear mission creep toward “internet licenses.”
• Some argue critics ignore privacy-preserving designs; others insist any normalization of ID checks is itself dangerous.

Evidence of harm vs. moral panic

• Supporters liken social media to cigarettes, citing device bans and internal platform research showing mental-health benefits from reduced use.
• Skeptics cite mixed and largely correlational academic findings and compare current fears to past panics over comics, D&D, TV, and rock music.

Parenting, youth agency, and social life

• One camp: parents already have tools; bans outsource parenting to the state and can block beneficial uses (education, marginalized youth finding support).
• Another camp: individual parenting can’t overcome network effects—if everyone else is on TikTok/Instagram, abstainers are socially excluded. Laws give parents “ammo” to say no.
• Edge cases (abusive homes, needing anonymous advice about sex/pregnancy) are raised as reasons not to hard-block access.

Scope, definitions, and enforcement

• Intense debate over what counts as “social media”: Discord, WhatsApp, SMS, YouTube, forums, games, Google Docs.
• Some favor functional definitions around “addictive feeds” (profiling-based recommendation), not generic online communication.
• Enforcement is expected to be porous; Australian teens reportedly still access banned apps. Some fear migration to even less moderated spaces; others think many kids simply won’t bother.