Letters: Under-16 social media ban a necessary first step

Re: “Under-16 social media ban is not the solution” (Opinion, April 18)

Today’s social media platforms are built on business models that depend on maximizing attention, emotional engagement and time spent online. Profits are generated precisely by keeping users — including children — continually connected.

In this context, it’s unrealistic to expect children, parents and schools to simply responsibly use products engineered to be compulsive.

In his op-ed, Vincent Paquin rightly points out that the addictive characteristics of social media lie at the heart of the problem. Where I differ is in concluding that an under‑16 ban is misguided.

An under‑16 ban should be seen as a necessary first step — a protective pause — while governments work toward stronger regulation of addictive design and engagement‑driven business practices.

Age limits alone won’t fix social media, but shielding children is a reasonable place to start.

Colette Martin, Montreal West

U.S. senator not Canada friendly

Re: “Republican senator a Canada booster” (NP Montreal, April 11)

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer has some gall professing to be a friend of Canada while saying, “I would take Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Alberta as three states.”

So it’s all about resources, not the concerns of the people of Canada.

He also advised Canadians to be less emotional about Donald Trump’s repeated 51st state remarks. Some friend!

Cramer comes across as just another American who needs to broaden his mind to understand the opinions and perspectives of others.

John Hall, Montreal

Liberals must clarify positions

Re: “Milliard says he would renew notwithstanding clause to keep shielding Bill 96” (The Gazette, April 17)

I’m confused. Does Charles Milliard’s tortuous statements on Bill 96 and the use of the notwithstanding clause suddenly become Liberal policy just because he’s the new party leader?

In all fairness to the electorate, I would suggest the Liberals hold a policy convention at their earliest opportunity or find a similar means to unambiguously define each plank in their platform before heading into October’s general election.

Eric Bender, Kirkland

Damage deposit a solution for pets

Re: “Tribunal’s ruling on pets little comfort for tenants” (The Gazette, April 7)

Quebec’s housing tribunal ruled recently that prohibiting animals on a lease is contrary to Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, but it doesn’t necessarily allow for pets to be kept by tenants in all cases.

For example, where the landlord is renting a unit in a duplex with a common entrance, consideration must be given to possible pet allergies.

This decision highlights the need for the law to permit landlords to demand a security deposit where a tenant has a domestic animal, as the likelihood of damage to the unit is greater.

I believe that were the law to be modified in this manner, more landlords would be open to renting their premises to people with pets.

Ian Copnick, Côte-St-Luc

---

Submitting a letter to the editor

Letters should be sent by email to [email protected]

We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette.

If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one.

Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication.

Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation.

We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer’s argument.

Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or “open letters” addressed to third parties.

Letters are published with the author’s full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published.

We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.

Please send the letter in the body of an email, not as an attachment.

The post Letters: Under-16 social media ban a necessary first step appeared first on Montreal Gazette.