In the US parents can mostly give their kids porn, guns, and alcohol at home. Wherein the drug isn't itself illegal you are for practical purposes also able to give your kids drugs.
Being shown to cause harm is also a meaninglessly low standard. Bathtubs, pools, and bikes can cause harm. You would need to show an actually useful standard. Lets propose will cause an unacceptable level of harmn that cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means.
I don't buy the argument that you are unacceptably harmed because you aren't capable of denying your kid social media nor do I buy the idea that social media couldn't be regulated to be less shitty and harmful.
Exposing children to pornography is illegal federally and in all states, treated as distribution of obscene material or child exploitation with no parental exemptions. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2252) prohibits such exhibition to minors under 18, carrying severe penalties like imprisonment.
So precedent exists. Social media is at least as harmful as porn.
Has anyone ever in life been prosecuted for allowing their teen watch boobs on the internet? I mean if you at any time prior to 18 have a computer in their room you absolutely know that you basically provided an adult portal.
Before the internet as I kid I rewired our houses cable wiring and stole my dad's dirty magazines. Pretty sure damn near everyone saw adult material prior to 18.
Being shown to cause harm is also a meaninglessly low standard. Bathtubs, pools, and bikes can cause harm. You would need to show an actually useful standard. Lets propose will cause an unacceptable level of harmn that cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means.
I don't buy the argument that you are unacceptably harmed because you aren't capable of denying your kid social media nor do I buy the idea that social media couldn't be regulated to be less shitty and harmful.