This is a pretty weak argument IMO. Try applying this argument to any other regulated context:
- Should McDonalds be allowed to put crack in their happy meals or is it the parents responsibility to keep those meals away from their children?
- Should kids clothing be free of asbestos or is it the parents job to avoid buying that?
- Should baby formula be free of lead or is that the parents responsibility to check for?
If a company is deliberately pushing a product that is harmful and (arguably in this case) addictive to children, that is a problem regardless of the parental role.
Perhaps a better example would be tobacco or alcohol. Also bad for adults, but we've at least agreed we should try to mitigate the harm that comes with early-development addiction.
If your problem is with the class of product, then you should know to stay away/keep your kid away. If the product has broken with the class (say, adding asbestos to kids' clothes), then we would want to regulate that. Really, as long as the product is staying within the general confines of the definition of the class, then it's up to the consumer to educate themselves and know better.
For a fun and controversial example, one could look at the RNA vaccines for COVID. Those had some properties that separated them from traditional vaccines such that people relying on the class of "vaccine" might have felt misled. As such, you would have expected government regulation to inform the consumer on the difference to expect in that scenario (which the government did).
I think you're saying that instead of regulating the experience for kids, parents should keep their kids away from that class of product entirely. In essence, treat all social media as adult-only products.
The biggest difficulty is coordinating this approach with other parents and institutions - it is punishing to be the only kid without a smartphone when peers (and increasingly, institutions) require you to have one to participate.
But that issue aside - it is still strange to allow for this class of products tailored to kids but parents are just supposed to universally agree should not be bought. There is clearly a society-wide issue here that we've left for individuals to solve. Predictably, it is not going well.
it is still strange to allow for this class of products tailored to kids but parents are just supposed to universally agree should not be bought
The US is all about freedom. We also allow people to smoke even though smoking kills more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined. That's weird...but we still allow it. Conversely, I would expect the EU to implement the kind of legislation you're advocating for.
- Should McDonalds be allowed to put crack in their happy meals or is it the parents responsibility to keep those meals away from their children?
- Should kids clothing be free of asbestos or is it the parents job to avoid buying that?
- Should baby formula be free of lead or is that the parents responsibility to check for?
If a company is deliberately pushing a product that is harmful and (arguably in this case) addictive to children, that is a problem regardless of the parental role.