It sounds like you don't have a kid who is literally incapable of self-moderating their interaction with a screen. I'm not who you are quoting, but we do.
We've given him instructions, consequences, rules, expectations, strategies, time-boxing, support, and therapy. He still CANNOT have free access to an internet-connected screen or he will end up on some video site and doom-scroll tiktok videos and the like to the exclusion of everything else that is going on or what he SHOULD be using the device for. EVERY single time. Even if we tell him he's not allowed on those sites. If we give him even a little bit for a while, he'll throw a violent and long-lasting temper tantrum when we say it's time to be done with them. And again the next time we say no. Those short-form reels/shorts/whatever seem to have all the same properties of narcotics on his brain.
The ONLY thing that works is giving him free access only to devices with limited functionality. He can watch DVDs on the TV, he can play Wii, he can play thousands of games on his retro handheld gaming console. He is fine with those things and can easily self-moderate with those. He'll do those for a while and then eventually be done with them and go outside and play, or build something out of lego. That would NEVER happen if he was allowed access to a device that he can doom-scroll on.
I think we need to acknowledge that while today's digital consumption experiences are generally unhealthy for nearly everyone, there are some non-neurotypical minds that are absolutely defenseless against it.
Stronger regulation would help everyone also those with more defenses. Who in the world is saying "I spend too little of my life doomscrolling"?
And IIUC it is the same with narcotics/alcohol/nicotine: Not everyone are equally affected by them, consequence wise and/or addiction wise, whether due to genetics or social or economic status. In those cases we use the law to regulate to protect the ones most suspectible.
That wasn't the case when these things were brand new.
In some years social media might be regulated in the way alcohol and smoking is (as Australia already did). But right now it is just the tiny beginnings of getting acceptance that parents ought to regulate their kids on this issue and that this is OK and a good thing.
We've given him instructions, consequences, rules, expectations, strategies, time-boxing, support, and therapy. He still CANNOT have free access to an internet-connected screen or he will end up on some video site and doom-scroll tiktok videos and the like to the exclusion of everything else that is going on or what he SHOULD be using the device for. EVERY single time. Even if we tell him he's not allowed on those sites. If we give him even a little bit for a while, he'll throw a violent and long-lasting temper tantrum when we say it's time to be done with them. And again the next time we say no. Those short-form reels/shorts/whatever seem to have all the same properties of narcotics on his brain.
The ONLY thing that works is giving him free access only to devices with limited functionality. He can watch DVDs on the TV, he can play Wii, he can play thousands of games on his retro handheld gaming console. He is fine with those things and can easily self-moderate with those. He'll do those for a while and then eventually be done with them and go outside and play, or build something out of lego. That would NEVER happen if he was allowed access to a device that he can doom-scroll on.
I think we need to acknowledge that while today's digital consumption experiences are generally unhealthy for nearly everyone, there are some non-neurotypical minds that are absolutely defenseless against it.