Banning teenagers from social media is a bad idea, I argue today in the Washington Post. It's less like banning them from alcohol or tobacco, as some advocates say, and more like banning them from books or movies – there are lots of books I don't want my kids reading before they're old enough, but to ban them entirely would be insanity. The evidence that social media and the internet are bad for kids is strikingly weak, bordering on nonexistent, considering the strength of the claims that are being made. That doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about – the evidence may change – but it leans in favour of pluralism via parental choice. For many bright kids, the internet can be a lifeline to interests and people they won't get access to at school. Imagine, for example, trying to follow developments in AI without access to Twitter. For even more of them, the internet is a remedy for the punishing boredom of being a teenager. If we've misdiagnosed why teens are unhappy – and, for example, school is the big cause rather than the internet – we could make things worse. I am not a believer in "anything goes" when it comes to under-16s. But the answer is to strengthen parental controls, including with more regulation if necessary, not to impose a single prohibition on all teens and families. Gift link below. wapo.st/3OcSzYf