That should be the parent’s choice, no?

That's what got us in to the current public health emergency. It is a luxury we cannot afford if we are to stand a chance to get out. https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s125

If the parents don’t see it as an issue then the state should not be forcing its way in, especially considering the harm to privacy and free speech. This is an area where reasonable people can disagree as to what the correct parenting approach is, so the state should not enforce a particular approach. If anything they should focus on making it easier for parents to set their own limits at the device level.

...except when the harm spreads far beyond the family.

"We have reached an inflection point. We are facing nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media." says the Lord proposing the UK ban.

Same moral panic that we had over TV, video games, and Pokemon cards.

The fact this time we have a ban says you're wrong.

No, it says that the government is overreaching in a desperate attempt to regain control over public opinion. (They will fail.)

> It is a luxury we cannot afford

Privacy is a luxury we cannot afford?

When it was a luxury we couldn't afford because of "terrorism" I was doubtful. Now that it's a luxury we cannot afford because of the "public health" effects of teenagers using TikTok, I am starting to struggle to identify a good-faith argument.

No, parents' choice is the luxury we cannot afford.