> unrestricted manner.

They didn't say unrestricted, they said locked out. As in, not accessible at all.

And you know what is also very hazardous to a developing person's mental health? Being left out of most social gatherings and interactions with their peers.

You can block your kids from accessing social media, but to succeed you also need to force their peers to communicate and interact with them in a unique and more frictive way. And you have no right to force someone else's kids to do that. So the reality is that without a lot of like-minded families that do the same, your kids are going to be left out of a lot of things.

So is it unrealistic to control your children's access to social media? No, not at all. But locking them out from it entirely as you stated, is a good way to negatively impact their social development.

I disagree. I grew up without a cell phone while all my friends had them. Beyond that, my friends had online gaming where I barely even had access to the internet, and what access I had was limited.

I find the argument that kids are going to unanimously ostracize another kid without an Instagram account very hard to believe. Kids _will_ be assholes for any reason under the sun, so it's not a question of will my kid have a hard time socially from time-to-time—that's just life.

Hobbies, social outlets, groups in the community—these are all ways to ensure your kids aren't socially stunted without giving them the emotional / mental equivalent of heroin.

> I disagree. I grew up without a cell phone while all my friends had them. Beyond that, my friends had online gaming where I barely even had access to the internet, and what access I had was limited.

The world's changed since you and I were at the ages being discussed here. We grew up in a different world, frankly.

> I find the argument that kids are going to unanimously ostracize another kid without an Instagram account very hard to believe. Kids _will_ be assholes for any reason under the sun, so it's not a question of will my kid have a hard time socially from time-to-time—that's just life.

They won't be ostracized. They will just be forgotten. If you are messaging a group of 10 people, and for 9/10 you can just use one platform, but for the last person, you need to use something else, then eventually they will start being forgotten unless someone is very proactive about including them. Miss one get together here, one joke there, and quite quickly you find yourself on the outside of the group. It's real, and I have seen it happen. It's not that kids are being assholes, it's that they are just behaving as young humans do.

> Hobbies, social outlets, groups in the community—these are all ways to ensure your kids aren't socially stunted without giving them the emotional / mental equivalent of heroin.

Those are all good and well, but they are no substitute for your kids finding their own friends as they grow up. Having the autonomy to organize your own social networks yourself is very important for kids.

Loneliness and a lifetime of sadness has been shown to have greater risks. Is cutting out social connections the answer? Because that's what ends up happening.

Please present evidence that denying teens access to social media causes them to have literally no meaningful social connections. I do expect social interactions to suffer for a teen in that situation. But I find it hard to believe that it causes complete isolation and (gimme a break) a "lifetime of sadness".

The parent didn't say "literally no meaningful social connections". You're asking for proof of a point that wasn't made.

Sadness, loneliness, isolation, these are not things that you can measure with such binary precision. They're emotions, and they vary, person-to-person, and moment-to-moment. Is it not plausible that for some people, 'social interactions suffering', even if not completely removed from social connections, is enough to make them feel a profound level of sadness or loneliness or isolation?

> Is it also unrealistic to prevent your kids from doing hard drugs?

Yes. If they want it, it's not hard to find.

That's not the point. The point is that it's your obligation to do your best to protect them from it. "Ease of access" is hardly a reason to not try.