The evidence against unrestricted social media use by minors is compelling. Research consistently shows that excessive exposure to social media can harm mental health, leading to anxiety, depression, and body image issues. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable as they navigate critical developmental stages. Algorithms on these platforms often prioritize content that is sensational or emotionally charged, exposing users to harmful trends, toxic beauty standards, and peer pressure.

Moreover, social media platforms can amplify the dangers of cyberbullying, turning what once might have been a schoolyard taunt into a relentless, round-the-clock attack. The anonymity afforded by these platforms emboldens bullies, leaving victims with little recourse. Tragically, stories of young people driven to self-harm—or worse—underscore the urgency of intervention.

Another significant concern is the erosion of privacy. Children and adolescents, often unaware of the long-term consequences, share personal information that can be exploited. From targeted advertising to potential security breaches, the digital footprints of minors are at risk of being misused, often with lifelong implications.

Critics of restrictions argue that banning or limiting access to social media for those under 16 could infringe on personal freedoms or impede tech literacy. However, regulation does not mean outright denial. It means crafting age-appropriate, safer digital environments. Just as we impose age restrictions on alcohol, driving, and voting, recognizing the maturity required to handle social media responsibly is a logical extension.

Proposals to limit social media use for those under 16 could involve several strategies. Age verification measures, time limits on app usage, and the removal of addictive features, such as infinite scrolling, can curb the negative effects without entirely barring access. Mandatory educational modules about digital literacy, privacy, and online safety can empower adolescents to use social media judiciously when they do come of age.

Social media companies must also bear responsibility. They profit enormously from the engagement of young users and should invest in robust safeguards, such as enhanced moderation tools, real-time flagging of harmful content, and algorithm adjustments to prioritize educational or uplifting material.

Protecting children and adolescents from the perils of social media is not a call for regressive control but a proactive approach to their well-being. As a society, we have a moral obligation to create an environment where young people can thrive—not one where their mental health and privacy are compromised. The proposals to restrict social media use under 16 are a step in the right direction, ensuring the digital age empowers rather than endangers the next generation.

Yet, as this debate unfolds, a peculiar conundrum arises. We are contemplating measures to shield young people from the hazards of social media, while simultaneously legalizing cannabis and allowing 16-year-olds to run for mayor. Clearly, something has gone wrong. If society deems unrestricted access to social media unsafe for those under 16, how can we justify empowering a 16-year-old to smoke cannabis or lead a municipality? It’s a paradox that demands urgent reflection, for it raises deeper questions about how we assess maturity, responsibility, and the well-being of our youth in an increasingly complex world.