The Biggest Logical Fallacy That We Are Up Against, Debunked

Logical fallacies of various kinds perennially show up in arguments in every debate.  But there is one that seems to be the biggest one on the pro-21 or otherwise prohibitionist side.  That one is the one we call the Reverse Middle Ground Fallacy, or Appeal to Extremes.  It is basically a warmed-over form of the old slippery slope fallacy, in which the Middle Ground Fallacy or appeal to moderation is "debunked", and pretending that the opponent's entire argument is therefore "debunked" as well.  It also functions as a straw man as well as appeal to logic.

For example:

• Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between communism and fascism, or alternatively between anarchy and totalitarianism, so we must pick one or the other 
• Claiming there is no philosophically stable position that says that cannabis is OK but hard drugs are not, thus "confirming" the gateway theory
• Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between complete Luddism and complete technocracy or Transhumanism 
• Claiming that reproductive rights or birth control of any kind inevitably leads to eugenics 
• Claiming that tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality (or sexual freedom in general) inevitably leads to tolerance and acceptance of pedophilia and other horrible stuff, thus all LGBT+ folks are inherently "groomers"
• Claiming that gender equality is inherently impossible because one gender must utterly dominate and control the other, lest the latter run amuck and become too dangerous (note that this works both ways)
• Claiming that "you are either with us, or you are against us"
• Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between unfettered access to alcohol for all ages and complete and absolute alcohol prohibition for all ages (or for all people between some arbitrary age limit).

And yes, every single one of the above are examples of actual arguments that have been put forth by extremists of various stripes.

But simply reversing a fallacy, does NOT a valid argument make.  Claiming that there is no philosophically stable ground between two extremes, just because one says so, is a sure path to Horseshoe Theory, where the extremes become far more alike than different (far left and far right, for example).

The 21 drinking age is not only a classic example of this fallacy, it actually undermines it's own position in its logical inconsistency and arbitrary selectivity compared to complete prohibition for all ages.  Thus, the 21 drinking age, or any age limit higher than the legal age of majority, is the LEAST logically and philosophically stable position in regards to alcohol (or tobacco or cannabis or really anything else, for that matter) that could ever be conceived.

QED

UPDATE:  Other notable fallacies (and questionable propaganda techniques) on the pro-21 side include:

• Ad baculum (appeal to the stick) 
• Ad hoc (arbitrarily making it up as they go along)
• Ad hominem (of all types)
• Ad populum (appeal to the gallery)
• Alternative facts
• Ambiguity or equivocation
• Anecdotal "evidence"
• Appeal to authority (their favorite)
• Appeal to logic (the "fallacy fallacy")
• Appeal to novelty (or "progress")
• Appeal to tradition (yes, really!)
• Apples and oranges 
• Assuming bad faith
• Citation mills
• Cherry-picking (selected instances)
• Contradictory arguments / kettle logic
• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
• False dichotomy or false choice
• False "experts"
• Genetic fallacy
• Guilt by association (however tenuous, notably with Big Alcohol or fellow travelers)
• Hasty generalization
• Immune to evidence
• Junk science
• Moving the goalposts 
• Mission creep
• Non sequitur
• Occam's Butterknife
• Oversimplification
• Poisoning the well
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Projection
• Quote mining
• Red herring 
• Slothful induction
• Straw man
• Suppressed evidence
• Using one bad policy to justify another
• Wishful thinking

Alberta Gets It Right

The Canadian province of Alberta is basically the only place in all of North America that gets it right across the board.  Legal age limits there are as follows:

• Alcohol:  18
• Tobacco and Vaping:  18
• Cannabis:  18
• Gambling:  18
• Guns:  18
• Voting:  18
• Run for office:  18
• General age of majority:  18
• School leaving age:  16
• Driving:  14 for learner permit, 16 for GDL, and 18 for full unrestricted license
• All other age limits:  similar to the rest of Canada and the USA overall (at or below 18)
• Curfew:  None at provincial level, only locally in a few towns here and there (usually 15)

In other words, 18 is the age of majority, and once you are an adult, you are an adult.  Period, full stop.  Some age limits can be lower than that, of course, as there is much room for nuance, but no age limit can ever be higher than that, at least not without extraordinary levels of justification.  And guess what?  The sky didn't fall in Alberta.  No seriously, it really didn't.  Alberta still has yet to get the memo about the supposedly catastrophic effects of full adult rights combined with "underdeveloped" 18-24 year old brains.

In fact, the Alberta Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits age discrimination for anyone over 18, except for senior citizen privileges for people over 55.

That is really how it should be everywhere, regardless of what exact age limit is chosen for age of majority (which is 18 in most of the world and most of the USA).  It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, as a child can easily understand it, but too many chronological "adults" seem to be unable to do so.  Anything else is a slippery slope, and such slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear.

And for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, while underage possession and consumption is illegal, for all three it is basically a mere ticket-level offense with no criminal record.  Unlike many US states have.  And parents are allowed to give their own underage children (but no one else) alcohol at home (within reason), as many but not all states currently do.

The driving thing is of course probably the most jarring one of all to the rest of the world, so allow us to explain.  The global outlier young age limit of 14, rivaled only by South Dakota and a few other rural states, applies ONLY to the learner permit, which is similar to an American style learner permit, with only supervised driving allowed among other restrictions.  To get a GDL (probationary) license, i.e. what Americans often call a "junior" license, you need to be at least 16 and also have had a permit for one year or more, and pass the basic road test which is harder than an American road test.  There are some restrictions to the GDL, such as no more passengers than there are seat belts, and a zero tolerance limit for both alcohol and cannabis, but no night restrictions.  And to graduate to the next level, the full unrestricted license, one must have had the GDL for at least two years regardless of age, be suspension-free for the final year of two years, and pass an advanced road test, the latter of which is being phased out in favor of simply making the basic road test more difficult and more like the advanced road test.  Honestly, making the American road test more difficult would probably be far more effective than any age-based restrictions ever could be.

Alberta in recent years has had one of the lowest overall traffic death rates per vehicle kilometers traveled in Canada, and lower than the USA, so they must be doing something right!

And DUI laws are quite strict there regardless of age as well.  There are swift and certain penalties of immediate but temporary administrative license suspension and vehicle impoundment for BAC as low as 0.05% (or 0.00% if GDL), in addition to any criminal penalties if above 0.08% and/or obviously impaired.  Note that the zero tolerance for GDL is regardless of age.  For DUI cannabis they are also quite strict as well, and we at Twenty-One Debunked think TOO strict since hard per se limits (let alone zero tolerance) don't really make sense for a substance with such complex pharmacokinetics and long detection times, and generally less impairing than alcohol.  At the very least, in the interest of simple justice, they really need to set the testing cutoff for positivity high enough to prevent false positives or innocent positives. 

Thus overall, Alberta is a good model for America to follow.  So what are we waiting for?

Oh, and they also have the best and largest shopping mall in the entire western hemisphere, the West Edmonton Mall.  It makes the even the vaunted Mall of America look a bit "meh" by comparison. 

Case Closed: Curfews Don't Reduce Crime

Curfews, especially youth curfews for people under an arbitrary age limit, have long been a solution in search of a problem.  They have been touted as a panacea for all sorts of social ills, most notably street crime.  And the evidence for that has been very weak at best, with plenty of evidence against it in fact.

In fact, a 2016 literature review of 7000 studies finds that "juvenile curfews do not reduce crime or victimization".  Proponents of such illiberal policies can cherry-pick all they want, but the hard data are pretty damning against the idea of curfews.  As Ronald Reagan said, "facts are stubborn things".

But now we have the strongest "natural experiment" with the extreme, unprecedented, all-ages COVID lockdowns, curfews, and other restrictions in 2020 that did not exist in 2019 and prior years.  If curfews and similar policies actually reduced crime, we would have seen a sharp decrease in crime in 2020 relative to the average of previous years.  So what were the results of this yearlong natural experiment?

Well, you might wanna sit down before reading this.  Turns out, crime actually went way up in 2020 compared to the past few years, particularly homicides.  Data from the 2020 put the per capita homicide rate in the USA at a 23 year high (highest since 1997).  And of course, plenty of rioting as well.  Even mass shootings and hate crimes are up as well, and have persisted through both 2021 and 2022, well after such restrictions were finally lifted.

Even the supposedly good news about reported rapes being down in 2020 needs to be qualified.  Given how the vast majority of rapes occur behind closed doors and go unreported even in a normal year, the apparent decrease in 2020 may simply be an artifact of an increase in underreporting due to lockdown, especially since domestic violence and child abuse both appear to have increased significantly during lockdown.  The NCVS also shows a decrease in 2020 and 2021 as well, but given the secular downward trend since 1993, and the fact that survey data gathering may have been disrupted during the lockdowns, that needs to be qualified as well.

Reversion to the mean after the #MeToo movement crested and faded probably also played a role in the 2018 spike in self-reporting followed by an even larger crash.  The downward trend continued well after the lockdowns were over as well, so it is unlikely that the lockdowns actually reduced rape.

Back in April 2020, anecdotal evidence of course suggested that crime was down in some areas.  But clearly that decrease was short-lived, and then the opposite occurred.  Whether it is due to pent-up rage, restlessness, boredom, unemployment, fewer "eyes on the street", destruction of community, or all of the above, these sorts of authoritarian and illiberal policies clearly do more harm than good on balance.

So let this be the final nail in the coffin for lockdowns, curfews, and similar restrictions.  If curfews are to ever be used to fight crime and/or civil disorder, they need to be very limited, local, nuanced, and short-term--if they are to even be used at all.  And they certainly should NEVER be used to fight an airborne respiratory virus, as that is a major category error.

QED

P.S.  None of the above criticism of course precludes getting tough on REAL crime.  That is, any crimes that objectively harm the person or property of nonconsenting others.  That should really go without saying, but we will say it anyway.  "Catch and release" is every bit as dumb when it comes to real criminals as it is for fish, completely defeating the purpose.  Ditto for the equally boneheaded idea of "defund the police" as well.  Baby, meet bathwater.  Focused deterrence actually does work when done properly. 

A Band-Aid Solution In Search Of A Problem

We at Twenty-One Debunked already noted in a previous article how we oppose the proposed Texas social media ban for people under 18.  Now, there is a Republican bill in Congress that would effectively ban social media companies from allowing anyone under 16 from joining their platforms, opening them up to civil lawsuits from both states AND parents if they do so.  And the FTC would also be allowed to levy fines against them as well, in addition to the "privatized enforcement" resulting from the threat of lawsuits.

So much for the party of "small government".

While that is a marginally better idea than the Texas bill, if largely because the age limit is lower (though even the sponsors note the exact age limit will be negotiable to get bipartisan support, natch), and it effectively puts the heat entirely on the tech companies rather than young people themselves, it is still essentially a band-aid "solution" in search of a problem, like the Staples "Easy" button.  It is both over- and under-inclusive.  It both exaggerates the problems facing a particular age group while also minimizing the problems facing ALL ages.  The real root of the problem is the toxic algorithms that Big Tech designs to be as addictive as possible.  And TikTok is basically the CCP's digital equivalent of their biggest WMD of all, fentanyl, in that regard.

(And speaking of fentanyl, some social media apps such as Snapchat are currently being used by dealers to sell actual fentanyl to both kids and adults, typically disguised as counterfeit drugs such as pills.)

So what should we do instead?  Well, we could adopt the data privacy laws that the European Union currently has.  We could tax the "attention economy" by taxing the advertising that serves as the business model of Big Tech.  We could put regulations on the algorithms that Big Tech uses to manipulate its users of all ages and keep them hooked.  We could investigate Big Tech for antitrust violations. We could, you know, actually educate young people on social media literacy, ideally starting long before they go on such sites.  We could do a smartphone buyback (similar to gun buybacks) for all ages.  And we could also, you know, enforce existing age limits (typically 13) that are clearly NOT being followed in any meaningful sense, honored far more in the breach.

We need not violate the First Amendment in doing so either.  We can treat social media platforms as "common carriers", while regulating the real root of the problem, the toxic and addictive algorithms that can hardly be considered "protected speech," anymore than nuclear weapons could be considered protected by the Second Amendment. 

Or perhaps if Congresscritters and their talking heads are so concerned, they should mean what they say.  Declare a state of emergency, on the grounds that Big Tech and their social media is an existential threat to civilization itself. Impose a "quarantine" on them for "just two weeks" (right!) wherein all social media are frozen and archived during that time, so they cannot be used, and everyone is logged out simultaneously and cannot log back in during that time. During that time, We the People can then re-evaluate our often unexamined and unquestioned relationship to Big Tech, and in conjunction with our elected representatives in government, decide what the next steps (if any) will be.

I guarantee you, that would have saved FAR more lives than the Covid lockdowns ever would have, as the latter saved statistically zilch in the long run in terms of all-cause excess deaths.

Another idea:  Nationalize as public utilities all tech companies larger than a certain size, while banning any ones that are already nationalized (in theory or in practice) by hostile nations (TikTok and the CCP, I'm looking at you!).  Just like we should do with the "too big to fail (or jail)" banks.  Something to think about.

We could do all that and more.  But that would make too much sense, right?  I mean, why let mere facts and logic get in the way of a good moral panic?

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  Republican Senator Josh Hawley's bill, with the aptly-Orwellian title "MATURE Act", would require social media users of all ages to submit 1) their full legal name, 2) date of birth, and 3) a scan/photo/copy of official government-issued IDs (driver license, birth certificate, etc.) for age verification to prove they are over 16 in order to set up a new account.  (Existing accounts would be grandfathered and not subject to this requirement, thank God for small mercies!)  That is, people of all ages would have to submit sensitive information to Big Tech, who we all know would NEVER use it for anything nefarious, right?  Let that sink in for a moment.  What could possibly go wrong?

Another bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), stops short of banning kids under 16 from social media, but rather seeks to make it safer for them.  And while the bill still has significant flaws that need addressing, we at Twenty-One Debunked would still much rather support that bill than the MATURE Act any day.  In fact, it may actually be enough to pre-empt the latter.

Even one of Hawley's previous bills would be better.

Ditto for the new California law, which goes into effect in 2024, which may very well become the national standard at some point.

FINAL THOUGHT:  Lest we forget, as Reason Magazine points out, social media, for all of its warts and flaws, was the only real lifeline that young people had during the pandemic lockdowns when they were not allowed to see their friends in person.  They make some great arguments as to how flawed this bill is.

Cannabis Legalization NOT Crazy-Making After All

Good news, it looks like cannabis legalization did NOT lead to a statistically significant increase in psychosis as the Chicken Little prohibitionists liked to claim.  And this new study was not done by hippy-dippy stoners, but by serious researchers at Stanford University, who published it in the esteemed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Not even recreational retail store sales (i.e. cannabis commercialization) seemed to significantly move the needle in that regard, despite the obvious net increase in cannabis availabilty, convenience, and potency relative to not having such legal retail store sales, and the (eventual) net decrease in price per unit of THC.

And furthermore, when results were broken down by age, the results were totally in the "wrong" direction than the age-restrictionists would have predicted.

OOPS!

Looks like Alex Berenson was wrong about that, yet again.  And looks like Reefer Madness 2.0 was ultimately a flop once again.  Womp womp.

UPDATE:  See also here and here as well for further studies that pour cold water on the Reefer Madness 2.0 fearmongering. 

Who Are The Real Radicals?

The word radical generally refers to a person or group that wants to make drastic and fundamental (that is, radical) changes to society.  Derived from the Latin word for "root", in this way it illustrates just how fundamental such change is called for.  Classic examples that you oldsters reading this may recall from back in the day include Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.  But is Twenty-One Debunked really such a radical group like some may think it is?

Is it really radical to want all legal adults above the age of majority (18) to have the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, including (but not limited to) the right to use, possess, share, and purchase otherwise-legal psychoactive substances?

Is it really radical to believe that alcohol should be legal for all adults, period, like it is in nearly every single non-Muslim country in the world (and even some moderate Muslim countries too)?

Is it really radical to believe that cannabis, which is objectively safer overall than alcohol and tobacco and less addictive than coffee, should be re-legalized (it was not always illegal, only for a tiny fraction of history) for both recreational and medical use, fairly taxed, and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco (and legally sold and/or used in many if not most of the same places as well)?

Is it really radical to believe that, when it is legalized, the legal age limit for cannabis should not be any higher than the legal age of majority (18), nor any higher than for the more dangerous and addictive already-legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

Is it really radical to believe that, for as long as tobacco remains legal and readily available, those over the age of majority (18) should retain the right to decide for themselves whether or not to choose pleasure over longevity and indulge in this (albeit dangerous and deadly) substance?

Is it really radical to not want to punish the many (such as an entire demographic group) for the actions of the few?  And to prefer to hold individuals fully and solely accountable for their own misbehavior?

Is it really radical to believe that drinking establishments, and especially "social hosts" at private residences, should NOT be held vicariously liable for what their adult guests or customers do after leaving the premises following participation in voluntary intoxication on the premises?  And that personal responsibility for individuals should still be a thing?

Is it really radical to believe that, as John Stuart Mill believed, that individuals are fully sovereign over their own bodies and minds, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned?

Is it really radical to believe that our own bodies are NOT property of the state or any other entity besides ourselves, regardless of what the state or entity may claim or choose to provide us with?

Is it really radical to believe that adults should NOT have to be baby-sat?

Is it really radical to believe that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar?

Is it really radical to believe in logical consistency and common sense rather than arbitrary legality?

Is it really radical to favor personal autonomy rather than paternalism?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government does NOT get to force or coerce states to raise their own legal age limits for alcohol (or any other legal substance) higher than their own legal ages of majority?

Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government should have far LESS (if any) latitude in terms of micro-managing authority over We the People than the state and local governments do, and when in doubt should really stay in their own lane?

Is it really radical to still believe in the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land?

Is it really radical to believe in liberty and justice for all?

Because if you think that these ideas are somehow radical, well, we've got news for you:  they are actually quite conservative and in line with both international and historical norms, even in our very own country before 1984 if you can believe that.  This shows just how far the Overton window has shifted both rightward and in the authoritarian direction, and just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

As Five Finger Death Punch would say, it's stranger than fiction, how we've decayed...

Still More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do

In the past, we would chronicle and discuss countless examples of drinkers OVER 21 behaving badly, as "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do".  Time to do it again:

In the past few weeks or so in America:

An underage drinker did NOT so desperately want an encore of New Year's Eve the following day that she got drunk, drove, and flipped her car, wrapping it around a telephone pole, splitting it in half, on New Year's Day.  And then had the chutzpah to yell at hospital staff who treated her injuries afterwards!

An underage drinker did NOT get so wasted that she rear-ended another driver, killing him, and then kept obliviously driving and sideswiping other vehicles.  She was three times over the legal BAC limit.

An underage drinker did NOT cause Florida's very first fatal drunk driving crash of 2023.

An underage drinker did NOT drive obviously drunk, lead police on a high-speed chase, and then have the chutzpah to proceed to fight with the officer after being pulled over.  Being a football star does NOT make one immune from consequences!

An underage drinker did NOT get himself an aggravated DUI plus a bunch of other charges as well for his egregiously reckless drunk driving escapades and even trying to flee, all while on a suspended, revoked, expired, or non-existent license.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into another vehicle after blatantly driving the wrong direction on the highway.  But at least he was wearing a mask in his mugshot, albeit incorrectly, right? 

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and injure three people while double the legal BAC limit and on a suspended license.

And underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash and injure himself and his three passengers, two of which were not yet legally old enough to drink.

An underage drinker did NOT get so extremely drunk that he passed out in Penn Station, and then had the chutzpah to assault the officers who roused him.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly pull out his gun and start shooting during an argument when a bystander made him pull over because he appeared to be driving drunk.  Guns and alcohol do NOT mix either!

An underage drinker did NOT drive drunk with his 2 year old daughter in his car, then assaulted a woman when she asked him to pull over so she could take the wheel.

An underage drinker did NOT drive nearly twice the legal BAC limit, with her young child in the car.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly hit his wife with a Christmas tree (!) after she asked him to help make dinner.   Yes, you read that correctly. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just the tip of the iceberg....

Have A Safe And Happy Holiday Season

(This is a public service announcement)

It is that time of year again when the holidays are upon us, and many of us Americans (and around the world) will be celebrating with alcohol and/or other substances, pretty much back to normal now.  We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to remind everyone to be safe and celebrate responsibly.  There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period.  We cannot stress this enough.  It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's really not rocket science, folks.  And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two.  Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or stay home and celebrate there.  Or simply don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.  Seriously, don't be stupid about it!  And the same goes for other psychoactive substances as well, and a fortiori when combined with alcohol.

ARRIVE ALIVE, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!   If you plan to drink, don't forget to think!  The life you save may very well be your own.

More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do

In the past, we would chronicle countless examples of drinkers OVER 21 behaving badly, as "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do".  But we have clearly been slacking lately.  Time to do it again:

In the past few weeks or so in America:

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly wrap her car around a telephone pole--and set a terrible example as Assistant District Attorney.

An underage drinker did NOT literally get her SEVENTH DUI since 2007.  

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly assault an officer while being arrested for a wrong-way DUI.

An underage drinker did NOT get arrested for DUI while on the job--as a state trooper.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and kill a 17 year old in another car, while another killed a 16 year old.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly ram his car into a police cruiser, with a BAC of a whopping 0.30%, nearly four times the legal limit.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and kill a motorcyclist.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and kill a sheriff's deputy. 

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly hold a razorblade to a woman's throat on an airplane.

An underage drinker did NOT have a drunken and violent meltdown on an airplane and try to fight off cops.

An underage drinker did NOT deliberately put alcohol in her baby's bottle, causing the baby to get sick.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just the tip of the iceberg....

We Oppose The Proposed Texas Teen Social Media Ban

In Texas, a lawmaker has recently introduced a bill that would completely ban anyone under 18 from using any social media whatsoever, and require age verification via photo ID for anyone over 18 to open a social media account.  And Twenty-One Debunked opposes this bill for the following reasons:

• First and foremost, it is extremely ageist and a slippery slope.  And what's to stop them from arbitrarily raising the age limit even higher?
• It is far too broad an overreach, and throws the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Social media does have a dark side that we all should be aware of, but a blanket ban on everyone under 18 is NOT the way to deal with it. 
• Young people ages 13-17 are not adults, but they are not entirely children either.  There needs to be far more nuance than this sort of blanket ban.
• It is yet another intrusive instance of Big Brother, that also affects people over 18 as well.
• There is no obvious grandfather clause for anyone already over 13 but under 18 who currently already has social media accounts. 
• It will disadvantage people under 18 relative to people over 18 when it comes to networking for jobs (keep in mind that LinkedIn would count as social media under this bill).
• It will simply drive people under 18 onto the Dark Web instead, where there are NO rules or limits of any kind, period.  If they are tech savvy enough to set up and regularly use their own Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok account, they are also savvy enough to download Tor and then go down a far, far worse rabbit hole of horrors.

Thus, this ageist bill is a massive government overreach that will do far more harm than good on balance.  If we must have any hard age limits for social media by enforceable law, and that is a VERY big "if", they should not be any higher than 16 at most.  Age verification is OK in principle, but it needs to be done very carefully to avoid unintended consequences in terms of privacy and such.

So what should we do instead?  Well, we could adopt the data privacy laws that the European Union currently has.  We could tax the "attention economy" by taxing the advertising that serves as the business model of Big Tech.  We could put regulations on the algorithms that Big Tech uses to manipulate its users of all ages and keep them hooked.  We could investigate Big Tech for antitrust violations. We could, you know, actually educate young people on social media literacy, ideally starting long before they go on such sites.  We could do a smartphone buyback (similar to gun buybacks) for all ages.  And we could also, you know, enforce existing age limits (typically 13) that are clearly NOT being followed in any meaningful sense, honored far more in the breach.

We could do all that and more.  But that would make too much sense, right?

To all lawmakers:  please vote a HARD NO on this bill and any similar bills.  And to all parents and other adults reading this:  be a mentor, not a tormentor.