Don't Co-Parent With Congress
Instead of lobbying for age verification and youth social media bans, parents can simply restrict their kids' smartphone use.


I'm always puzzled when I hear other parents say they're worried about the effects social media might be having on their children. My confusion only grows when I see that the federal government is considering a ban on kids using social media. Are teens acquiring their own mobile devices and paying the bills? Doubtful. It seems someone gave them tacit permission to be on those platforms and the tools to do so. Yet many parents feel like they have no options other than to surrender to their kids' desires or hate tweet their congressman to get the government to do something about TikTok.
I'm the parent of a teenage daughter who does not have any social media accounts. She has lived her life unplugged.
I remember very clearly when I decided to institute this policy, when she was about 4 years old. We were sitting together in the waiting room of the pediatrician's office, and as usual, I was on my phone sending emails. She wanted to play with my device, and I declined by saying, "When you've learned to be comfortable alone with your thoughts, you can play with my phone."
At age 10, we added a landline phone for the house and bought a laptop for her schoolwork. Strangely, landline phones are making a comeback with Gen Z thanks to the same 2000s nostalgia keeping the Scream movie franchise alive. Younger generations are even beginning to self-regulate their screen time by switching to "dumb phones" and old-school flip phones.
But when my daughter turned 13 this year, we took the next step and equipped her with a smartphone, more for our convenience than hers. She learned what I told her when she was 4, which was to be comfortable without distraction. Devices are the modern-day pacifier, handed to kids as young as 2 if they're squawking at the Olive Garden—but unlike pacifiers, kids aren't meant to outgrow them.
Parents today are scared of what they're seeing kids encounter online. Pornography seems ubiquitous, algorithms game users' attention spans, and content recommendation features offer plenty of inappropriate content.
My wife and I share those fears. Millennials got to experience the last days of the Wild West online, and while certain elements of it were fun, there is so much we would not wish for our child to experience the way we did.
The good news for parents in 2024 is that there are market solutions to this.
After modest research, our family purchased the Bark phone for our teen. Bark is one of many cellular devices with parental controls and permissions built into the operating system. Kids who have Bark get to enjoy the social boost of having what looks like any other Android or iPhone, but all app downloads can be set to require parental approval. There are also adjustable monitoring features powered by AI to flag content and conversations that parents might want to know about.
Bark has numerous competitors, including Gabb phones, Troomi, and Pinwheel. Consumers have a remarkable number of options that contradict the notion that parents are powerless or lack tools to guide their children online and thus require some government help.
It's important to clarify that getting a modified phone for our child was not convenient compared to simply adding a standard iPhone to our cellular plan. While the Bark phone is very affordable, the learning curve is annoying. The content monitoring can also be a little aggressive for our taste.
As I'm writing this, I've just received a text notification that my kid is listening to a song on Spotify with sexual content: the Millennial anthem "Mr. Brightside" by The Killers. Great song. Something something jealousy, touching of chests, and taking off dresses. For now, these sorts of warnings are mildly entertaining—especially the daily notifications of "Weapons," "Violence," and "Alcohol Content" coming from streams of the Hamilton soundtrack. But if Spotify is recommending Cardi B's "WAP" to our daughter before we've talked about sex, we'd like to know that, and now we can.
Parents and consumers have real choices available to them on the market, and they are not all the same. Bark phones, for example, can have almost every moderating feature turned off when the time comes, while Troomi and Pinwheel phones make their device guardrails permanent.
Don't despair. There are alternatives out there that are better than co-parenting with Congress.

- What we asked for:
Illustrate the article, "Don't Co-Parent With Congress." - What DALL-E says it gave us:
The illustration visualizes the concept of the article "Don't Co-Parent With Congress," depicting the tension between governmental intervention in family matters and parental autonomy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I certainly agree that Congress shouldn’t be making laws about which platforms are legal (suck as Tik Tok), but I have no problem with requiring age verification.
We have it on many other products - beer, tobacco, print pornography, etc and Im fine with all that (at lease in principle).
I think having those age restrictions actually makes it easier for parents to be more free range with their kids. They allow us not to have to always be looking over their shoulder.
For example, I can give my 12 year old child freedom to run to the local convenience store and give them $20 to spend. The alcohol is age restricted, so I don’t have to micromanage that transaction. I can just let them go to the store on their own. (Obviously, I know there are ways around age restrictions, and they aren’t perfect).
If the author of this article wants to manage their kids more, that’s great. There are tons of technologies that allow for a much more hands-on approach. I would prefer not to do it that way though So I kind of like the system that we have (though certainly not perfect).
I agree. The government does a great job raising my kids too. I like how it knows and enforces age restrictions without me ever needing to consider anything. My daughter was on Tiktok so much
hertheir eyes were getting squinty. Thank god it will soon be banned because I was out of ideas. I mean, I could stopherthem myself, but thenshe'dthey'd get all annoying and whiney and mad at me. If sleepy Joe does it, hey, I'm still a cool Dad.It does lots of things better than I can. Did you know I wasn't even aware that my kids should have started puberty blockers before perverse natural puberty ruined their choice to be non-binary?
Yeah, why do the hard work of raising a child when you can spend your free time staring at a screen and living your own online lifestyle. After all that's the benefit of being older, you are free to spend your time on Facebook without any distractions since the government school has already prescribed a pile of meds to keep the kids quietly staring at the TV.
Amazing how both of you chose not to read his actual comment.
But please. Support helicopter parenting and the surveillance of kids 24/7 because you dont think certain things like alcohol should have age restrictions. Hell let’s make pedophilia a non crime too because hey, if parents don’t want their children fucked they should watch them 24/7.
Who needs to allow kids to slowly grow unto independence. No protections needed at all.
Amazing how both of you chose not to read his actual comment.
It seems you didn't read this:
If the author of this article wants to manage their kids more, that’s great. There are tons of technologies that allow for a much more hands-on approach. I would prefer not to do it that way though So I kind of like the system that we have
You're a fool if you trust the government to keep your kids from getting fucked or anything else. Likewise if you think the only 2 options are to helicopter parent or let the state set the rules for adolescence. I think both are poor choices.
You just don't get sarcasm.
That’s a giant leap Jesse.
A giant leap with a monster truck over a twenty foot tall burning straw man.
Which I'm sure he thinks should be illegal too.
I'm not sure many convenience stores would sell alcohol to children in the absence of laws, but in any case you could check the receipt.
Age verification for social media platforms are worse than for the in-person transactions you mentioned. I can show my driver's license to a clerk when I buy alcohol, and after that he'll soon forget my identity, if it ever even registered with him. When a social media platform verifies someone's identity, that identity will then forever be recorded and associated with everything that user expresses, ready for a government audit.
I understand that it's easier for parents if the government coerces the rest of us into "child safe" behavior, but, bluntly, we don't owe that to you. It's your responsibility to create your own bubble for your own children, if that's what you want for them.
Nuff Said.
FWIW, my post isn’t advocating for age restrictions on social media in general, Just for age restrictions to Online material that is age restricted when in print such as pornography.
I absolutely would NOT support govt imposed age restrictions on something like creating Instagram accounts or Tik Tok accounts
Similarly, we have age restrictions on buying alcohol in stores. Im ok if that same age restriction is enforced with purchasing alcohol online
Understood. My objections stand.
It boils down to this: in person transactions that are limited by law are enforced by carrying a state ID. That is also useful for the state tracking everything you do.
The idea stores wouldn't sell to minors absent a law stating they are not allowed to do so is rather absurd since looking back in time to before those laws were in place you see children drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or whatever else is deemed immoral behavior today.
The same goes for online transactions, only there is no way to actually verify that person without...some form of government issued ID that is useful for the state tracking everything you do.
This is, of course, why the usual suspects want the equivalent of an online ID that tracks everything you do all the time. They want the anonymous part of the internet destroyed entirely, and would love it if every web page or application you ever use to be attached to your online ID for easy pursing by state and federal agencies.
Frankly, it's misguided in the extreme to think there is any way to stop minors from encountering this type of thing online. You can do a basic search on any internet search engine and get pornography with just about zero effort. Maybe not from the big smut providers, but people put this stuff all over the place and the internet is a rather huge place full of places kids probably shouldn't be going.
So, in short, the government simply cannot stop this kind of thing. A parent can by limiting how and where a kid gets on the internet. If I can see their screen, I know what they are getting into, and if I monitor our own internet traffic I can do the same thing if I'm so inclined without the kids knowledge.
In fact, that is exactly my plan for our kid when they get old enough for that to be a concern. I'm also fully aware there are ways around that and I won't be able to track them all. I was once a pretty smart kid who found ways around those things, and I'm sure any kid of mine would probably do the same thing. I turned out ok in spite of that, and they probably will too.
Half the fun of being a child is trying to outwit your parents. We've all tried to do it when we were kids. We turned out fine even with watching the playboy channel or skinimax when a buddies parents left town, drinking cheep beer that we got a bumm to buy for us or smoking cigarettes and cigars we stole from our parents.
The list goes on and on. Still civilization keeps on rolling. How is it worse for a kid today to figure out how to watch porn online than it was for us to find our dad's playboys?
I think BYODB has it about right. Online ID requirements will cost us a lot in privacy and anonymity online and will be ineffective in keeping kids from seeing porn.
This is because stopping kids from viewing porn is merely the excuse to do what they already want to do: access everything you've ever looked at or posted online.
The fact it will be ineffective at it's stated goal doesn't matter. It isn't their actual goal, it is the fig leaf they are using to get the camels nose under the tent among normies that would otherwise see it for what it actually is.
In essence, beware any legislation that is 'for the kids'.
Nuff said.
Well said.
In Serbia we send the kids to get some beers and never worry about it in the slightest, the shopkeeper will make sure it goes home. The kids can drink whenever they want and they choose not to, it’s American forbidden culture that makes interesting.
Not wrong. Puritans left a deep mark on Christian culture in the United States. They've always been quick to ban "sins". Hell, the type of police who enforce buzz kill laws are called "Vice". It's right there in the name.
You don’t understand. Most of the [WE] power-mad mobsters don’t even have kids. Most don’t even care that there is a completely viable free-market solution. Practically all don’t address the implications of using the nations Gun-Force itself against kids.
They support the tyrannical madness because it gives them a sense of self-importance (virtue signalling) and power over others. That’s it. That’s all. The Gov-Guns against those ‘icky’ people kids makes them feel superior.
…just as it is with “the sky is falling down”; These are not *real* problems with no solutions short of poking 'guns'. They are *EXCUSES* to fulfill the need of self-significance and using Gov-Guns to get that instead of having to *EARN* it. Your playground bully mentality in D.C. 101.
Libertarianism where there is no freedom for communities to encode their values for their community is going to fail. I don’t care to have the federal government dictating laws that do not have the support of 2/3 of the country. But I hate this tyranny of the minority where you must have freedom to walk nude in the street in order to be truly “free”.
No. Communities and states should have the capacity to allow their rules and laws to reflect the character of that current community. If subsidiarity has no place in the libertarian framework than it will fail.
Never-mind "I see that the federal government is" in the article.
...because there has been so much REPEAL of crappy tyrannical laws around here someone just might run around naked. /s
POINT: Where does the 'encode their values' stop? Isn't there enough 'government' already? More, more, more?
If you don't want to watch me walk down the middle of the street naked, covered in green Jello, smoking a Cuban cigar then buy a house in a community with covenants preventing public nudity. Don't force your ideology on others with the force of, as one fellow here so poetically says, "gov guns". Living in a free society means taking a few risks. If you don't want risks then live in a tyrannical society, just hope your side keeps winning the elections or else you may find someone else's tyranny being force fed to you.
In my "libertopia" (we don't live in a libertarian utopia), there would be no, or almost no, public property. The rules for public (not really public, as you'd be on private property) nudity would be dictated by the property owner(s). So if the property owners of the market square allow nudity, you are free not to frequent those shops, free to frequent the shops anyway, or free to frequent those shops in the nude.
Instead, what we have now are places like San Francisco, where ugly fat guys walk around on public property in the nude. I don't agree with that. As long as we live in the flawed system where there is public property, I'm fine with some laws that restrict absolute freedom to do whatever you want. The tricky part is deciding what laws in this flawed system are okay, and what laws go too far.
That's not tyranny of the minority, that's limited government. We can debate where the limits should be. But saying that certain things should be untouchable by legislation is not any kind of tyranny.
Liberty is a dangerous thing. Conservatives want to protect us from liberty. How nice of them.
Who had Parler shut-down? Who just got busted doing massive censorship on Facebook, Twitter and Television?
Well said point but on scale the Democrats are far worse and at least 'majority' Republicans call-out this 'minority' in their own party.
And I'd state that's exactly why the Democrats are far worse. Their ideology teaches them [WE] gang-building RULES so Gang-Loyalty is more important than anything else.
It's not a competition. They all need to be called out. However i will say calling out democrats is beating a dead horse. They aren't even trying to claim to be for individual liberty. Republicans are making that claim and it's bullshit.
That would actually be true if the Democrats were a 'dead horse' but the 'dead horse' has mostly complete control of the national government.
Do you get what the phrase “beating a dead horse” means?
So why have age restrictions on firearm purchases?
We shouldn't. Parents should do their job of parenting. Since many don't, we get intrusive laws from nanny state types who want the cops to keep the kids off their lawns.
Do you think 'social media' is a loaded gun?
It never ceases to amaze me the BS equivalency test-failure (propaganda) that starts when someone want to dictate others with gov-guns.
Good question.
This is interesting. For those of you who seem to be against age restrictions en masse, would you remove the age restriction for minors entering into legal contracts?
Maybe it's not [our] minors more than it's someone's kids. There is a reason parents are held liable for many of their children's actions and that's the way it should remain.
Parents are responsible for their minor children. That's why kids can't enter into binding contracts and why parents, not government, should take responsibility for making sure kids are "safe" online (whatever the parents think "safe" is).
I argued that minors are not contractually competent back when pederasts on the 1980s LP platform committee were adding mandatory child molesting "rights." This article is like a reductio rebuttal urging child abuse by sensory deprivation as "the" alternative to Comstockism gone berserk. To anyone free-range from age 6, the eye-plucking sounds as creepy as Jeffrey Russell Hall.
Amusingly, children already can enter into legal contracts online since very few of them actually verify if you are of a legal age to enter into it.
When it's discovered a minor is the person who signed up, it is almost certainly a voided contract, but how many video games require the user to confirm a terms of service contract and how many kids simply hit 'yes' to the 'are you 18' question?
Answer: All of them do that, and amusingly all of them are also held to the terms of service contract even though they are likely simply removed from the platform if that fact is discovered (per the TOS itself).
Then they can simply make a new account using the exact same method. Over and over again.
Maybe the parents should stop their kids from entering illegal contracts before they find themselves in legal trouble instead of trying to shovel that responsibility onto someone else.
Depends on what we are calling a minor and what the contract is for. At age 17 you can't sign yourself up for the military, at 18 you can. What happened in those 12 months that made you adult enough to make that life altering choice?
I think anyone living on their own able to pay their own bills is an adult. Be they 14, 16, 18 or 30. If you are under your parents roof you are under their rules. I don't think a 30 year old living with his parents should be able to vote but I've met 16 year old who have their shit together and should be able to vote.
I think assigning an age of majority is insulting to some and way too liberating for others.
Millennials got to experience the last days of the Wild West online, and while certain elements of it were fun, there is so much we would not wish for our child to experience the way we did.
Unless you think you yourself are a corrupted monster because of all that 'wild west' internet back in the day, this is more or less an insane fear.
That, or it's a tacit admission that the 'wild west' days of the internet were vastly preferable to the corporatized internet we see today.
Quick Robin. Activate the Lenore signal--before Jeff Hall II here blinds his kids or chops off their fingers.
They probably turned out fine. Even with an open, decentralized, expressive community at the other end of a modem.
The old internet was way better in many ways.
Corporatized internet is not open, it's not free, you're constantly surveilled, and all of the information is in silos, controlled, meted out by corporate algorithms or hidden amongst endless dross, bot created pages tailored to game the corporate algorithms.
Parents are always like this. They turn into pearl clutchers the moment their children encounter the same thing they did as young people. How many angry dads are mad at boys for leering at their daughters when they were all about the pretty young girls at the same age? How many "they have to have a phone for emergency" parents in Gen X had to find a pay phone to call home when they were teens?
The internet is an adult place. Not for kids. Like the bar, the workplace, and other places in the real world. Children have to learn to be responsible for themselves in those environments over time. That's how life is.
Whatever, at least these particular pearl clutchers are against government mandated enshittification "for the children."
there is so much we would not wish for our child to experience the way we did.
Why? Did you turn out to be terrible people?
Reminds me of the Jeff Goldblume quote from the second Jurassic Park movie. When the rich guy says, "We won't make the same mistakes this time!" Goldblume's reply is, "No. You will make all new ones."
Robin, quick... activate the Lenore signal!
Why is it so important that I can anonymously get porn from a proliferation of 'free (ie, ad-revenue supported) porn sites' - but its not important that I can't do that at the store, or when buying it?
Why is it important that I can do this with these sites when I can anonymously get free porn from file-sharing sites?
I see claims of a 'first amendment' issue - but what's the issue?
What other reasons are there for not having age-verification?
I'm pretty sure you can still pay cash at the porn store.
What other reasons are there for not having age-verification?
Privacy. Anonymity. Not having more and more online activity tracked so it can eventually be part of your social credit score.
Or something a democrat politician/bureaucrat can use to ruin your life.
Or something a democrat politician/bureaucrat can use to ruin your life.
f your social credit score.
Tomato, potato.
F*cking libertarians.
"Instead of expecting strip clubs to card your children and bars and stores to check ID before selling your kids booze and cigarettes, you should just never let your kids out of your sight."
Just raise them to be better people. It's not hard. That and some porn isn't going to make them into the monsters feminists in the 90s feared. The occasional beer, given freely while under your supervision, takes away the forbidden fruit aspect.
Or you let the government in to help raise your kids. Just shut the fuck up when your "partner" decides they should be read stories by drag queens and offered puberty blockers behind your back. After all, you let that camel stuck its nose into your tent. Keep that fucking camel out of mine.
I’m sure this legislation will stop any workarounds, like a VPN.
“can simply.”
I mean, obviously! It works on paper so easily! Just like socialism! All we need is a bark phone! (Do you get a kickback for every sign-up, or is it a “per webpage view” type of arrangement?)
Y’know, I’d take this more seriously if you jerks weren’t constantly trying to defend shoving gay porn and drag queen lap dances on minors.
I’d take it more seriously if you were AGAINST recreational drug proliferation instead of rabidly – to the point of insanely – in favor of it.
I’d take it more seriously if you were a little less “how can we help release violent/sexual predators from prison” and a little more “why don’t we throw them in a hole literally forever.”
I’d take it a little more seriously if you would support ANY effort towards sexual responsibility instead of no-questions-asked abortion and mail-order abortion drugs kept secret from parents.
I’d take it a little more seriously if you didn’t fight tooth and nail against any safeguards to keep kids and porn apart from each other, instead of demanding that they should be sacrificed for your so-called “privacy concerns” when you illustrate zero shame for your porno addictions.
I’d take it a little more seriously if you – EVEN ONCE – took the side of any parent at a school board meeting, instead of defending the enablers that rule them.
But no, you have the arrogance, the sheer temerity to say, “parents can simply restrict their kid…” when YOU INTENTIONALLY FRUSTRATE EVERY SINGLE EFFORT OF PARENTS TO DO SO AT EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY. To the threat of JAILING them and putting their kids in STATE CUSTODY if they don’t go along with drug-fueled sex-crazed rainbow marxist hedonistic self-destructive and society-destroying garbage that is openly peddled to them every waking minute of every day in academia, news, entertainment, sports, social media, pop culture, consumerism, and anywhere else they can get their poisonous tendrils into.
But yea, go ahead and tell us how successful you’ve been with YOUR kid because you got a Bark phone. Gosh, there’s so many options – starting at a mere $40/mo. Per line. Because in Joe Biden’s America, cost is no issue!
The sheer gall of you writing an advertisement on a site that regularly empowers every single force that’s actively working AGAINST parents to help serve their kids up to this progressive rot – I mean, bro, I thought I had reached the depths of how little respect anyone could have for Reason contributors with Emma and ENB… but dude, you just hit an all new low.
Go die in a fire, Kent.
You know, and I say this with all the love in the world, many of the decafinated brands today have all the full flavor you've come to expect from coffee.
I don't drink coffee. Never cared for it. Especially once it stopped being coffee and became coffee flavored sugar.
But this article was hands down one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read at Reason. Every day they routinely defend the social/political/moral degenerates that are intentionally frustrating parents whose kids are being fed progressive/Marxist/pedo garbage every waking minute of the day, while at the same time ardently shaming parents who don't free range their kids so they can be easily groomed - but hey just get a Bark phone, it'll be fine.
If you know your Dante - these are the kinds of people who wind up spending eternity in the Malebolge.
Whetever stimulants you take need to be stopped. Clearly you are too high strung.
You only think that because you're addicted to life in a bong cloud.