Should Children Under 16 Be Banned From Social Media?

I DIDN’T LET ELECTRONICS RAISE MY CHILDREN.

Every time the conversation comes up about banning children under 16 from social media, I find myself looking at it from two different angles.

On one hand, I absolutely understand the desire to protect children.

On the other hand, I always come back to this question: At what point does protection become government overreach into parenting?

I raised three children in a household where electronics had boundaries long before this became a national conversation.

My children were in upper high school before I allowed Instagram. They were in their 20s before Facebook became an option for them. My baby girl was in the 9th grade before she even got her first cell phone.

And television? Limited.

Not because I thought technology was evil. I simply believed there were things my children needed to learn, experience and develop before a screen became one of the loudest voices in their lives.

They read.

They created.

They used their imaginations.

They had conversations.

They learned how to entertain themselves without constantly being entertained.

Let me tell you, allowing electronics to raise my children was never an option for me.

That was my responsibility.

And that’s where this conversation gets complicated.

Children Absolutely Need Protection

I don't think we can pretend social media is harmless.

Children are growing up with access to opinions, images, trends, strangers and information at a level previous generations never experienced. And unlike television when many of us were growing up, this isn't something that turns off when the show ends.

It's in their pockets.

It's at school.

It's beside the bed.

It's following them everywhere.

So yes, I believe parents need to pay attention. We need boundaries. We need conversations. And we need to know what our children are consuming.

But does that automatically mean the government should decide that every child under 16 should be prohibited from social media?

That's where I hesitate.

Where Do Parents Fit Into This?

Parenting has never been one-size-fits-all.

One 15-year-old may have the maturity to responsibly use social media with parental supervision, while another may not.

That's a parenting decision I believe families should have a significant voice in making.

At the same time, I don't think social media companies should get a free pass either.

If platforms are going to profit from young people's attention, then they should have a responsibility to build safer environments, provide parents with meaningful controls and be transparent about how their platforms affect children.

This can't become another situation where all of the responsibility gets dumped on families while billion-dollar companies simply say, “Well, you should have watched your child better.”

No.

There's enough responsibility to go around.

Tamika's Take

I'm big on protecting children.

I'm also big on parental rights and personal responsibility.

So for me, the bigger conversation isn't simply:

“Should children under 16 be banned from social media?”

It's:

What responsibilities belong to parents?

What responsibilities belong to social media companies?

And when should government intervene?

Because protecting our children matters.

But so does making sure we don't slowly hand over every parenting decision because parenting has become difficult in a digital world.

I made the choices I believed were best for my children.

Other families may choose differently.

And THAT is exactly why this conversation deserves more than a yes-or-no answer.

So what's your take? Protection—or government overreach?

— Tamika's Take