🧐 Florida says: “No TikTok till you hit puberty” — but wait 🤔

So, gather ’round, children of Florida 👶. The state has decided you are apparently too fragile, too impressionable, too… teenage-brain-under-construction to handle the existential dread and meme-spam of social media. That’s right: under the new law known as HB 3, if you’re under 14 — no more Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, or YouTube accounts. Officially. 🛑 

And for 14- and 15-year-olds? You might be allowed… if your parent or guardian gives permission. Because obviously, only a grown adult can decide whether you should be allowed to become a doom-scrolling zombie. 👵👴

Supporters claim it’s all about protecting mental health, warding off addiction to “algorithms, autoplay, push-notifications” and the general moral decay that comes from endless scrolling. 😇

Legal drama: “First Amendment who?” 🎭

Of course, this being the United States, someone thought: “Hey, what about free speech?” Enter lawsuits from big-tech lobby groups and a chorus of constitutional lawyers, arguing that the law might violate the First Amendment. Freedom of expression for minors? Who asked them anyway. 🤷‍♂️

But — plot twist — a federal appeals court has now said the state can begin enforcing the law, at least for now. So yes: the Great Social-Media Purge of under-14s is officially in effect. 🎬

The Age Dualism: If kids < 14 can’t have social media — what about folks > 65? 🪩

Let’s be real for a second. If the argument is “they’re too vulnerable, too prone to addiction or naiveté or psychological harm” — where do we draw the line? Why not invite a little bipartisan (and ageist) consistency… and say: maybe once you hit 65, you’re out too.

• Are we so sure older folks aren’t easily manipulated by algorithms, misinformation, or endless attention-grabbing notifications? 🧓

• If we’re banning under-14s because they “don’t know better,” maybe we should ban over-65s — since “senior moments” and digital confusion are basically a cultural stereotype? 🙄

• Plus: think of the chaos — no more grandmas quoting conspiracy-theory memes, no uncles ranting about “the youth these days,” no retirees posting eight photos of their cat at 2AM. Social silence at last. 🤫

Social Media Banning for 65+ — The Satirical Manifesto 📜

1. No more accidental share-everyone emails — because we know what happens when Aunt Mabel accidentally hits “reply all.”

2. Algorithms can rest, algorithms can heal — social-media companies forced to restructure their business model: goodbye targeted ads for wrinkle cream, hot tubs, or gold-plated canes.

3. Internet peace restored — no more flood of “back in my day…” comments, no more holiday-photo overposting. Everyone under 65 gets the stage.

In short: if society is so fragile that we must “protect” kids from social-media doom-scrolling, then maybe we should “protect” the rest of humanity too. After all, who’s to say a 67-year-old doesn’t triple-tap, scroll until sunrise, and then complain about “kids these days”?

Final thoughts (with a wink 😉)

The people behind this law — bless their sanctimonious hearts — are basically saying: “We know better than you do.” And fine, maybe they have a point when it comes to preventing childhood distraction, mental-health harms, or predatory algorithms.

But the moment you start outlawing what kinds of digital freedoms different age-groups get? That’s not protection, my friend. That’s paternalism — or, if you crank up the sarcasm: benevolent dictatorship by birthdate.

So yes: if we’re banning the under-14s, maybe it’s time to draw the line at 65 too. Let’s age-segregate the internet while we’re at it — because nothing says equality like “some of you are just more equal than others.”