Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason... Yes, controlling children access if done wrong could lead to control adults but it doesn't mean it inevitably will.
Social media for teens has been studied, we know what it can cause psychologically, the humans programming it are incentivised to make them addicted to it, and addictive they are by using any manipulative technique to increase engagement, and attention spent.
What would you like to see as evidence for it to be regulated as "not for children" like tobacco, and alcohol?
The research on social media harm is far from conclusive, despite what people seem to believe. To quote the National Academies report:
> The committee’s review of the literature did not support the conclusion that social media causes changes in adolescent health at the population level.
Having read through the couple hundred page report, causality was not established and the studies found both positive and negative effects in different subgroups.
Given banning social media might cause harm to a some groups of children, perhaps decisions on whether to forbid use are better left with parents for now.
Social media for teens has been studied, we know what it can cause psychologically, the humans programming it are incentivised to make them addicted to it, and addictive they are by using any manipulative technique to increase engagement, and attention spent.
What would you like to see as evidence for it to be regulated as "not for children" like tobacco, and alcohol?