Policy:

• Phones, tablets, and personal smart devices are restricted during instructional hours for all students K–12.
   
• Devices may be stored in lockers, sealed pouches, or designated school systems.
   
• Medical, disability, and emergency exceptions preserved.
   

Why:

• Improves focus, learning outcomes, mental health, and peer interaction.
   
• Reduces bullying, cheating, classroom disruption, and anxiety.
   
• Supported by educators across political lines.
   

Who enforces:

• Schools & districts (clear, simple, uniform rules).
   

Policy:

• Complete ban for ages 15 and under on covered social media platforms.
   
• Ages 16–17 allowed only with verified parental consent.
   
• No “default access” for minors.
   

Enforcement:

• Platforms are legally responsible for compliance.
   
• Significant fines for allowing under-age accounts.
   
• No penalties for parents or children.
   

Why:

• Social platforms are intentionally engineered to be addictive.
   
• Children under 16 are uniquely vulnerable to mental-health harms.
   
• Responsibility belongs with companies profiting from engagement — not families.
   

Policy:
For users under 18:

• No algorithmic “infinite scroll” feeds by default.
   
• Nighttime notification curfews (e.g., late evening to early morning).
   
• Parents may opt-in to waive restrictions for 16–17 year olds only.

Why:

• Sleep disruption is directly linked to depression, anxiety, and poor academic outcomes.

• This preserves parental choice while setting healthy defaults.
   

Policy:

• Platforms must verify age without collecting or storing sensitive personal data.
   
• No government ID databases.
   
• No biometric tracking.
   
• No permanent identity profiles.
   

Key principle:

Verify eligibility, not identity.
 

Acceptable methods may include:

• One-time third-party verification tokens
   
• Cryptographic age proofs
   
• App-store–level age gates
   
• Parental consent credentials that do not expose the child’s identity
   

Why:

• Protects children and civil liberties.
   
• Prevents creation of new surveillance systems.
   
• Shifts compliance costs to platforms, not families.
   

No. This policy regulates corporate behavior, not speech or parenting.
We already set age limits for driving, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling — because children deserve protection from known harms.

Because:

• The evidence of harm is strongest under age 16.
   
• “Parental consent” alone has proven ineffective at younger ages.
   
• A clear rule is easier to enforce and harder to exploit.
   

Because:

• Teens mature at different rates.
   
• Parents should have authority — with guardrails.
   
• The goal is protection, not punishment.
   

By placing the burden on platforms, not users.
If a company allows under-age access, they pay the penalty — not families.

Right now, they already do — because platforms make it easy and profitable.
This policy forces platforms to stop turning a blind eye.

No.
The policy targets commercial social media platforms using engagement-driven algorithms, not basic communication or learning tools.

Medical, safety, and accessibility exceptions are preserved.
Schools already manage emergency communication successfully.

Absolutely not.

This is pro-child, pro-learning, pro-mental-health, and pro-responsibility.