We cannot simply ban things if they are bad, however weak or strong the evidence is. We have to examine access on the basis of rights alone. If the right exists then it could kill all kids and it would still be the correct decision to allow it.

> The Science is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence is Fueling a National Push to Ban Social Media for Youth

But the children one is very effective, because there’s this overprotective hysteria about them, especially when most aren’t technically children (a 16yo isn’t a child for example), and this is very new concept that had serious impact on both the young ones or their parents, back in the day kids used to play outside, used to live their lives and learn, now in the Karen-led society kids can’t be even left alone in the house, or having your 3 kids using the public transportation to go to school (https://globalnews.ca/news/7145065/vancouver-dad-appeal-kids...), it destroyed kids independence or learning how to be one, while adding extra overhead on parents that eventually they stopped having kids entirely.

With subjects like this, the outcome variables are things like “suicide” and “eating disorders”. So, what, we have to wait until R² > .95 to be convinced of the utility regulation? Seems the least-harm approach is actually to index on the side of regulation first instead of pretending the null is true in this case.