Which the government doesn't care about. This may have something to do that people don't criticise the government when they are just losing their life's savings.
It's worth scrutinizing the philosophical mental model implicit in your opinion.
Do you wait for conclusive empirical evidence before doing anything? Or do you run an experiment in one country based on an informed opinion and see what happens?
I am more inclined to pursue the latter model for this question.
The case against youth social media makes logical sense, there is circumstantial evidence that it's having a negative impact, and I have enough experience with data to know how difficult it is to demonstrate that it's true empirically without a large-scale natural experiment like the one that's about to happen when this law passes.
A lack of evidence should not paralyze you on questions where conclusive evidence is very hard to assemble. Especially when action will create evidence.
For a substantial hindrance and costly compliance to be introduced then the burden of proof is on those trying to apply new law. The government has not done this.
If there is a 'mental health epidemic' caused by social media it really isn't showing.
Australia's Prime Minister did an interview where he was asked 'What would you do if you could pass one law' . His response was 'ban social media' because people are so mean on it.
https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/the-case-against-soci...
Meanwhile Australia has the largest per capita losses on gambling in the world.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/gambling
Which the government doesn't care about. This may have something to do that people don't criticise the government when they are just losing their life's savings.