These seem all over the place - or maybe it is just this article that is not explaining it well?

For starters, "smartphones" aren't the only SIM-carrying devices that can access the internet and install apps - dumbphones can do the former and tablets can do both, which you wouldn't even be able to visibly see someone using, if it is in their bag and they use something like a watch interface to it. Laptops too...

The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (Safe) for Kids act addresses algorithmic feeds. It would require social media platforms to provide minors with a default chronological feed composed of accounts they have chosen to follow rather than algorithmically suggested ones.

Ngl, that sounds awesome - and not even just for kids! But immediately after that the article continues:

The bill would also mandate that parents have more wide-reaching controls like the ability to block access to night-time notifications.

Isn't this already built-in to various OS's, so why put the onus onto the app itself?

Electronic devices like calculators have been a staple inside schools for half a century at least, and poor people who cannot afford one of every type of device will generally opt for one device that can install many different types of apps - so to now ban these apps, b/c they might be used in a certain particular manner... while simultaneously NOT stopping school shootings, it blows my mind.

"Political theater" is the phrase that comes to mind. Another phrase is "No child left behind", given how the parents seem to be against these policies, but the State has deemed that it knows better(TM).

Then again, perhaps it has a real purpose in mind after all, as a law designed to extract money out of big tech companies as fees pile up?