It's not though, completely removing social media from children is also a problem because it's become nearly impossible to socialize without it... kids almost universally have social media access, so to tell yours that they can't have it ostracizes them in a lot of ways. I'm worried that completely limiting access to it is worse.

I can relate to this with my own kids because I grew up with a kid who wasn't allowed to watch TV, his family didn't have one in the house. I saw this kid on my school bus daily, but I don't even remember his name because my friends and I were always talking about TV and video games and weren't emotionally competent enough to know how/why to include him. I'll forever remember him as "the kid without a TV."

They care. That's exactly why they are thinking about the problems that having a smart phone would have. You are just drawing the line differently to others.

There's a whole range of solutions. From no smartphone to letting them have a smart phone but lock it down. All have reasonable points and show strong involvement in their child's lives.

It's very hard though; particularly if you do want to give e.g wikipedia access.

I am reasonably tech savvy and gave up figuring it out with the controls that Apple and Google provide, and paid for an MDM application.

Also, it means banning most popular apps, as they are all building in social media features.

> It's possible to set up a child's smartphone in such a way that their access to social media is limited if not totally removed.

You clearly don't know my kids.

> The problem is parents who don't care enough to get actively involved in their child's lives to this extent.

That's a borderline insulting statement and not fit for HN.

That's how the Amish do it.

The wise old smart elders sit down and discuss the latest gadgets. If the gadget looks harmful then they say nope.

It's a pretty good system.