Neil Freiman

It's great to have friends that are better dressed than you that know how to style themselves because you can ask them for advice.

And now a word from our sponsor, LinkedIn Ads.

Happy holidays, Toby.

I got you something.

Oh, Neil, you shouldn't have.

But I did, and it's the gift of good advice.

Check out LinkedIn Ads.

They have the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks, and they have a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers.

Right now, spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one.

Just go to linkedin.com slash mbd.

That's linkedin.com slash mbd.

Terms and conditions may apply.

If you want to use social media down under, you can no longer be under the age of 16.

On Wednesday, in a first of its kind move anywhere around the world, the country banned anyone under 16 from having accounts on the most popular social media platforms, including Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, and X. It makes Australia the first country to put social media scrolling in the same bucket as booze, tobacco, and driving as activities that are off limits to kids until they're old enough to safely use them.

To justify the law, Australian officials say social media harms kids by increasing anxiety, exposing them to cyberbullying and predators, and in the worst case scenario, causing mental illness and suicide.

They blame the companies for creating addicting but unsafe products by prioritizing profits over safety.

But there are many on the other side who oppose the age restrictions as a massive overreach.

They argue that the ban cuts off kids, especially from marginalized communities, from connecting with each other and will make them less informed, less prepared citizens down the road.

Most of all, they say this ban is simply not enforceable and certainly won't lead to Australian kids putting down their phones and frolicking outside all day in analog bliss.

Toby, is this a landmark seatbelt moment for child safety or a misguided slapdash unworkable policy?