1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

Banning children from social‑media platforms infringes on free speech and fails to address the real driver of harm: addictive algorithmic design. Regulating those algorithms offers a constitutional, evidence‑based solution that protects all users, especially youths. 1. Target the root cause. Instead of restricting minors, require platforms to abandon endless‑scroll feeds, mandatory push notifications and opaque recommendation engines that fuel compulsive use. 2. Constitutionally sound. Content‑neutral algorithmic limits survive strict scrutiny, unlike age‑based bans that courts have struck down as First‑Amendment violations. 3. Supported by research. Studies link specific design features—auto‑play, personalized “addiction loops,” and frequent alerts—to higher screen time and poorer mental‑health outcomes; moderating these features directly reduces risk. 4. Benefits everyone. Algorithmic harms affect adults as well; a universal framework improves overall public‑health outcomes rather than singling out youth. 5. Enforceable standards. Existing models such as the EU’s Digital Services Act show how disclosure, audit rights and penalties can compel compliance without invasive age‑verification. 6. Stimulates healthier innovation. Baseline safety rules encourage companies to develop “time‑aware” or chronological feeds, creating market competition around user well‑being. 7. Prevents unsafe migration. Keeping teens on regulated mainstream platforms reduces the lure of unmonitored, underground apps that pose greater safety risks.