There are parental control tools available for deciding what sites are reachable on your home internet. Don't know about smart phones, but data can certainly be entirely disabled. And you don't have to let them have one, whatever they demand. It's all in your hands. Kids can't get any internet at all, without some form of parental permission.
And if 'maintaining a social life' is an argument... well, watching degenerate porn is also required for that, as well as drinking and doing drugs. To some degree, at least.
Paywalls don't just mean paying money. It also takes away anonymity. I don't want to make that sacrifice for the sake of other peoples children, when a perfectly good line of defense already exists, that their parents just can't be assed to use.
With the advancements of medical science, it would be important to clarify that the child should be removed from the unwilling mother without being harmed, as far as is possible. That doesn't contradict previous verdicts (that I know of), so there's no 'settled case law'-argument against ruling on it.
Excess deaths is the best measure, IMO. 11,880 is definitely too low.
The tests that are being run in some places are complete nonsense. Any recipient of free money may well be happy about it, but it ruins the economy as a whole. So if you only give it to a small sample of people, that test is going to miss the biggest downside.
The current covid relief packages provide more useful data. We see that the people who now don't need to try to make themselves useful, suddenly have free time to devote to activism, to get themselves even more free stuff. It's an inherently unstable system.
A few hours later... Colin Kaepernick is in the new NFL video game, as the best player in history. CancelNetflix is QAnon. The Muller team all wiped their phones. All the forest fires are climate change.
Sorry, but this wasn't even top 3.