The same could be said for teen drinking, smoking, casual sex, and drug use. Those who are dead-set on doing it will always find a way, that's the energy of teenage rebellion at work.
Whilst I do agree that it's a failure to parent to a large extent, locking things behind restrictions can also make people want it more without them understanding why they're being restricted from having something that clearly makes a lot of people happy.
I go back to my teenage self, and if instead of treating me like an idiot, people explained the pros and cons to it, and helped me to understand it, I might just not want it for myself. In the same way that I had teen pregnancy and accidental overdoses explained to me, I understood the risk-to-reward ratio and why people were concerned enough to try and educate about it.
FWIW, whilst I don't take drugs, I do believe in legalizing them because punishing users makes precious little sense instead of helping them kick the addiction and get their life on track. However, legalizing of drugs equally doesn't mean I think people should seek them out, but those who are going to take them are probably going to take them anyway, and that should be something we can deal with in an appropriate and compassionate manner.
No one is suggesting to deprive your kids of social media without explaining the dangers. But I also think its a fallacy that I see all the time when the situation is boiled down to only two options: restrictions with no justification and treating your child like an idiot pet, or explaining why its bad but not actually imposing any restrictions and letting your child choose for themselves like they are an adult (which they aren't). A middle ground exists of treating your child like a growing human being in which you put in place restrictions to protect themselves from themselves, while also explaining the importance and motivation of those restrictions.
> those who are going to take them are probably going to take them anyway
I also think this is a common fallacy. As you said, some individuals are dead set on using drugs, participating in risky sex, teenage drinking, or utilizing social media may circumvent any restrictions you place on them. But there is also a large proportion of the population who isn't "dead set" on using those things, and are only interested enough to use them if convenient, but if otherwise restricted or disincentivized will move on to other things. Its certainly a far more nuanced equation than "People will do whatever they want, regardless".
I agree. The key thing is this: people vary drastically.
What is effective in preventing x person from doing something bad for themselves isn't going to be effective on y person. This is where parenting styles must vary in order to be effective.
> The same could be said for teen drinking, smoking, casual sex, and drug use.
There are things that have been shown to have an effect on teen drinking, smoking, casual sex, and drug use. And things that have not.
Parents forbidding it is definitely not in the effective category.
It is wild to me that the GP's analysis of what might be done begins and ends at "we've run programs asking parents to forbid social media use, and they just can't be bothered to!"
I think you have to consider the broader peer group. If all the anti-social media parents and their kids become friends with each other, it will be far easier to avoid peer pressure compared to regular society. Same with drugs, sex, smoking, etc, if your kids have good company and friends, avoiding harmful things is much easier.
Whilst I do agree that it's a failure to parent to a large extent, locking things behind restrictions can also make people want it more without them understanding why they're being restricted from having something that clearly makes a lot of people happy.
I go back to my teenage self, and if instead of treating me like an idiot, people explained the pros and cons to it, and helped me to understand it, I might just not want it for myself. In the same way that I had teen pregnancy and accidental overdoses explained to me, I understood the risk-to-reward ratio and why people were concerned enough to try and educate about it.
FWIW, whilst I don't take drugs, I do believe in legalizing them because punishing users makes precious little sense instead of helping them kick the addiction and get their life on track. However, legalizing of drugs equally doesn't mean I think people should seek them out, but those who are going to take them are probably going to take them anyway, and that should be something we can deal with in an appropriate and compassionate manner.