> I can't be the only one that's seen the hundreds if not THOUSANDS of children (under 18) fighting, causing mayhem, attacking innocent people, and property destruction videos that circulate all over the internet.

I can’t think of a worse way to assess the state of society than by consuming viral videos circulated online. This is a really disturbing way to form or justify opinions.

Really? You don't think social media, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, OnlyFans, 4chan, et al, is a mirror image of the current society as a whole?

How do you assess the state of society? Without looking at the content said society produces?

The news makes money when you're engaged. The easiest way to keep you engaged is with anger and fear. That's why "if it bleeds, it leads" is a traditional maxim of television media. Social media is the same. They're trying to make money by keeping you engaged.

Neither the news nor social media is trying to give you a mirror of society. They are telling you the worst things that happen to keep you watching, not to give you a realistic picture of risk levels of activities.

Is this something you're not familiar with? Most adults have at least some awareness of this.

Viral content on social media is pretty much by definition non-representative of normality. If it were just everyday reality it wouldn't go viral.

I go out into said society and judge it for myself.

I understand your concern and feel that part of the problem is that in many areas in the US it's not comfortable or safe for adults to be out walking (unless they are with their dog.) The streets aren't set up for it, the police think it's weird behavior, and as a result people stay inside which means there is less adult supervision for the children out in public.

If you ever visit Europe you can expect to have your mind blown as you will see nine year olds walking themselves to school, taking public transit independently, as the norm. This works because there are always adults out and about.

If you ever visit most of the United States, your mind will be blown as well. Every morning all the kids in my neighborhood walk to the elementary school, from kindergarten up. There are crossing guards at a few key crossing points, but for the most part the kids are left unattended.

Parent's aren't being investigated for negligance because of 15-18 year olds. This is about 8 year olds. They're not the ones being reckless.

Also perhaps if young kids get a bit more freedom, they'd make more reasonable decisions when they're older? This could even help the "mayhem" you're worried about.

You haven't read the text of any of the bills, have you?

> A CHILD IS NOT NEGLECTED WHEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES THAT A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR LEGAL CUSTODIAN WOULD CONSIDER SAFE GIVEN THE CHILD'S MATURITY, CONDITION, AND ABILITIES

Which part of this language triggers your apocalyptic fears?

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1090

Actually after reading the bill you linked (apologies I was looking at the other states bills) you left out the main point that does actually reduce my "apocalyptic fears"

IV) REMAINING IN A HOME OR OTHER LOCATION THAT A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR LEGAL CUSTODIAN WOULD CONSIDER SAFE FOR THE CHILD.

So not roaming around the city or in a random location.

A _safe_ location.

I left out all the examples because they are "including but not limited to"—the text I included is the main bit that defines what the principle of the law actually is, the bullets are given by way of example and to spell out specific cases that should never be left to a judge to interpret.

If a parent could reasonably decide that a child should be allowed to roam free, taking into account that child's maturity, this law would allow that parent to decide that.

_A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT_ can decide that their child should be allowed to roam free at _HOME_ or _A SAFE LOCATION_.

Now who gets to decide what a _reasonable and prudent parent_ is?

No, you're restricting it more than the law calls for. A child is not neglected when they are allowed to participate in any activities that a reasonable and prudent parent would judge to be within their capabilities. You're getting too fixated on that one example, and there are a lot of places in the US where a child of a certain age can and should be allowed to roam pretty much anywhere.

You're correct the language does leave it up to judicial interpretation, and I find that to be a weakness in the law, because it leaves too much room for police and CPS to claim that they thought they were doing the right thing.

I think they should restrict activity in the way I understood it. Restrict to home and or a safe location and remove the judicial interpretation. I would be 100% fine with that.

This is how you get children who never grow up able to take care of themselves. All of those things you're so worried about children doing? To the extent they happen at all, you're just pushing those things off until they're 18, delaying the developmental process and shoving those growing pains into the workforce and adult society. Moreover, it's hard to learn how to cope with independence without some measure of... independence. Another thing you don't want to be first learning at 18.

I strongly suggest you put down the devices and go live a little. As others have explained, social media feeds are not in any way an accurate or reasonable reflection of societal norms.

Everything you listed is already a crime or will swiftly involve child services for due to obvious behavior problems in the children. These laws are entirely about protecting responsible parents who want to let their children learn to peacefully navigate the outdoors in a city.

that's a different problem. or are you seriously suggesting that even teenagers not be allowed to be unsupervised until they are 18? that's ridiculous.