The real risk is they’ll get themselves a dodgy free one, one that will hoover up all their data and their identity. Only a few will filch Mum or Dad’s Visa card to buy a decent one.

I might add that the same approach to evidence is often found in articles in the Conversation that support particularly contrarian views on social issues, especially those involving sexual identity – except that there the term generally applied is “research” (note the obligatory underline), and when you follow the link, the “research” turns out to consist of one article in a journal not known for its rigour.

Oh, and while I’m at it: how many asexual-plus people do you know who are about to be thrown under a bus? And if you don’t know of any, why bother including them in the acronym?

This article is also losing a lot of nuance – there were plenty of pre-“social medial” social spaces online for marginalized people to hang out, the difference was that they were opt-in forums rather than the universalizing and forced in nature.

Finally, the “evidence” cited seem more argumentative than actually rigorous – here is a better recent paper showing that most young people actually hate social media and are essentially socially forced into using it, and would gladly opt out if it were not for the FOMO:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771

PROJECT ROCKIT co-founder Lucy Thomas called the ban a “distraction” from real issues affecting children’s safety… There is clearly a desire to do something…

There are countless examples of governments doing ‘something’ as a distraction from their inability or lack of will to do anything effective, if they can even identify an effective solution. It is pretty much standard operating procedure, so no surprises there. As we all know,

• Something must be done
• This is something; therefore
• This must be done.