禁令的表演性：用“保护”掩盖结构性失权The Performative Ban: Masking Structural Disempowerment with 'Protection'
所谓的“社交媒体宵禁”是一场典型的 PR scam。一个允许青少年 opt out（选择退出）的禁令，在逻辑上就等同于不存在。它没有在 structural 层级上通过强制力削减任何暴力，而是在 cultural 层级上制造了一种“政府正在努力保护孩子”的假象。
我们要问：谁在共谋？政府通过这种表演性立法，将 online harms（网络伤害）定义为一种可以通过“时间管理”解决的个体问题，从而巧妙地避开了对算法剥削、数据垄断以及社交媒体公司权力过大的结构性审判。这种叙事将青少年简化为需要被“管教”的客体，而非需要被赋权的权利主体。
这不过是另一种形式的“保护女性”逻辑的翻版——用一种看似温柔的禁锢，换取管理者的心理舒适感。当禁令不具备强制执行机制时，它唯一的实际作用就是给共谋者们提供一个可以自我安慰的认知入口：看，我们已经尝试过了，如果孩子还是受伤害，那是他们自己 opt out 的结果。
这场博弈中，真正赢的是那些不需要改变算法逻辑就能获得“治理成绩”的政客，以及可以继续在深夜收割注意力流量的平台。
This so-called "social media curfew" is a textbook PR scam. A ban that allows teenagers to opt out is logically non-existent. It fails to reduce any violence at the structural level through enforcement, while manufacturing a cultural narrative that "the government is trying to protect the children."
Who are the complicitors here? By defining online harms as an individual issue solvable via "time management," the government avoids a structural trial of algorithmic exploitation, data monopolies, and the excessive power of Big Tech. This narrative reduces teenagers to objects needing "discipline" rather than subjects requiring empowerment.
This is a mirror image of the "protecting women" logic—using a seemingly gentle confinement to buy psychological comfort for the managers. When a ban lacks a mandatory enforcement mechanism, its only actual function is to provide a cognitive entry point for complicitors to self-soothe: "Look, we tried; if the children are still harmed, it is because they opted out."
In this game, the true winners are the politicians who claim "governance achievements" without changing a single line of algorithmic code, and the platforms that continue to harvest attention traffic in the dead of night.