Children under 16 years old should be banned from social media T The speaker is a spoken debate about a topic, and a topic. Tthe speaker is a spoken debate, and this is a topic of the issue. A lot of negative stuff. For example, there is examples of toxic relationships, violence, gore, nudity, porn. And so that everyone can explain their question, and then they react to me. So, it's important that social media should be banned for children under 16 because when they're that young, they don't have the tools and the maturity to deal with the negativity and the poor influences that social media has on their brains. And it hurts their relationship skills and social skills. Huh.

I see your point here , but it just fails with the assumption that

Listen, your anecdotal evidence is cute and all, but that is not the majority. Your cousin, your nephew or cousin, she definitely could have got... If there was a lack of social media for her and kids her age, she may have even actually found a community in real life that actually built up her social skills and helped her more than just a social media lens, where she can very possibly still remain. Back to your anecdotal evidence though, that is just one case. The majority of social media for kids under 16 is completely negative. There is very poor influence, if any. If there is influence, it's very poor and generally harmful. And like how you said that kids will find a way around it, they will also find a way around getting these age restrictions off that you mentioned. And, you know, talking to them about it isn't just going to fix the whole problem. Like, there's still drunk drivers, even though there's been countless, countless, um, Countless warnings and segments about drunk driving and its dangers. Your solution also sounds nice in theory, but it likely won't execute well.