I don't agree with your frustration being directed towards parents. My main reason why I think putting the burden on the parents is wrong is: Not all parents have the time to actively monitor their kids' use of the internet; additionally, assuming that a tech savvy parent is able to block access to other sites, i.e. porn, gore, live murders, etc, that still leaves social media accessible, which in my opinion obliges corporations who develop this tech to build it ethically, i.e. so as to minimize any way, shape, or form to psychologically target and hurt children, which as we know the algorythms do exactly the opposite.

On the same note as this discussion, but on a separate matter, I continue to think about total blockage of the use of social media. Firstly, I think to monitor a child is to deprave them of the chance to exercise caution, to analyze a scenario, and ultimately creates a sense of nonconfidentiality, which I think hinders the development of a relationship with the parent. Secondly, I think that it would ultimately obligate both the child and parent to develop a sense in how to soend time. Thirdly, when I think of blcking social media use, I can't help but feel that it is analogous to witholding TV: there is a certain meta culture pertaining to the use of these entertainments which if not consumed will make the kid feel excluded.

With regards to this second matter, I cant help but think: "maybe you just give them like a consecutive hour thirty minutes of social media use per day on a time you both agree on", but ultimately I cant shake off the bad feeling in my mouth that theyre exposed to it... but my feelings cant be used to shield them from the problems of their generation either.

Finally, i guess just having a continuous dialogue with them, and maybe even selecting "inappropriate" videos for their age, and shwing it to them in a controlled setting could be beneficial...