I’m a Father of Two. I Don’t Need the Government to Keep My Kids Off Social Media

L ast month, the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) passed the House and advanced to the Senate, where it now awaits scheduling for debate. Among other things, the bill would ban social-media platforms from permitting kids 13 and under from creating profiles and prohibit these platforms from using “personalized recommendation systems” on teens under the age of 17 — which means that the use of all but the most basic information, such as age, language, device type, and general location (city and state), would be off-limits for organizing their social feeds.

The bill is the latest episode in a no doubt well-intentioned effort to address what renowned psychologist Jonathan Haidt has termed “the great rewiring of childhood” — wherein kids’ experiences in the real world are stunted while their online experiences blossom with little to no oversight.

As a father of two children under the age of four, I’m a fan of Haidt, and I think it’s generally a very good thing that the world is waking up to the pitfalls of social media — especially for kids. But do we really need a government solution to this problem?

Some argue that this bill, if implemented, would hinder cybersecurity, parental rights, and free speech. They fear that the bill’s provisions would inevitably lead to a world where social-media platforms have to collect and store personal documents such as driver’s licenses in order to grant people access, and that the resulting massive databases would be prime targets for hackers. They would also find it an affront to parents’ rights if access to platforms like YouTube, which help some parents educate their kids, were subject to a congressional mandate. And they make the case that the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that Congress shall not condition access to protected speech — even that of minors.

All of these concerns hold water, especially if — like me — you believe that there’s another way to address the problems KOSMA aims to solve.

From my perspective as a dad, such bills are unnecessary. Granted, I don’t have any teens yet; who knows, maybe one day I’ll look back on this opinion and cringe. But with all the tools at my disposal to monitor my kids’ devices, screen time, and social-media use, I can’t imagine a time when I would rather hand off that responsibility to the government.

Concerned parents’ ability to monitor and set boundaries on their children’s devices has never been greater. Just Google “best parental control app of 2025” and prepare to be overwhelmed by how many companies want to help parents keep their kids safe. One website tested 30 parental control apps to bring consumers its top recommendations. New and improved tools are being made available all the time. For instance, Apple’s latest white paper details the improved tools they have made available to parents to better age-restrict apps on iPhones, block inappropriate content from reaching kids’ phones, and protect their online identities. And Google’s Family Link provides similar services for Android families.

For my part, I don’t intend to give my kids access to smartphones or tablets — maybe ever. And I doubt I’m the only parent who thinks this way. A Pew study from 2020 reports that more than 70 percent of parents are concerned about their children’s screen time. One 2023 study found that more than 93 percent of parents felt they shouldn’t give their kids a phone — though, it should be noted, 71 percent of these parents’ kids accessed them anyway. Maintaining an analog environment for your kid is clearly easier said than done, but don’t judge me for trying to buck the trend.

In his New York Times best-selling book The Anxious Generation, Haidt emphasizes the need for a collective approach to the problems that stem from the great rewiring, which I get. After all, I may be able to control my kids’ home environment, but what about their peers’? I’d rather spare my kids from having to grow up in a generation suffering from brain rot.

But a collective approach doesn’t necessarily mean a legislative one. Instead of trying to pass problematic laws, the government would do better simply to educate the public and leave the rest to parents and to a culture that is becoming increasingly aware of what these algorithms are doing to our brains.