I'm sure there is no problem with comparing something with mixed benefits and downsides, with an addictive drug which has caused millions of deaths and has zero upsides

[iampytest1@infosec.exchange]

I'm sure there is no problem with comparing something with mixed benefits and downsides, with an addictive drug which has caused millions of deaths and has zero upsides.
I'm sure these Mumsnet people want an informed and rational discussion, and aren't just trying to spread fearmongering. Well, two can play at the game of spreading poorly thought out and uncited claims.

I don't dispute the fact social media has harms, but groups like Mumsnet chose to completely ignore the fact children can find safe spaces online which they can't find at home or at school.
Yes, as the article points out, some of those spaces promote medical misinformation and self-harm. But the solution there isn't to completely deprive children of that support. The solution is better educating children on how to spot misinformation and harmful situations and promoting legitimate safe spaces moderated by competent individuals who can prevent those problems from occurring. To be clear, I'm not expecting a 13 year old to perfectly parse what is and isn't harmful, a task few adults can accomplish, with limited experience and less maturity. Internet safety education only is effective when pared with good content moderation and access to reliable sources of information and support.

Children have just as much a right as adults to participate in discussions on complex social and political issues, in a space where they feel safe to express their opinion even if they disagree with what their parents or friends believe.

16 is also quite old. In some places in the US, people can start driving at 15 1/2. The age of consent in the UK and many US states is 16. I guess having sex is just as dangerous as accessing social media.

But, in any case, age is just a number; it is a proxy for physical, emotional, and mental maturity, and an inherently imperfect one.
It isn't a perfect indicator of what is and isn't appropriate for a child. There are 13 year olds who can handle situations a 17 year old wouldn't. Every person matures differently, and any strict age-based restriction will fail to comprehend that reality.

The writers of this article didn't consult a single civil liberties group, and the only criticisms it has of Mumsnet are so mild they might as well not exist. Its an uncritical puff piece for Mumsnet.

Mumsnet calls for under-16s social media ban with cigarette-style health warnings

Resembling cigarette packet warnings, the ads highlight dangers and urge people to email MPs

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)