Are we creating a two-tier electorate?

What if we let 16 and 17 year olds vote in the Clacton by-election?  Then we tell them they are mature enough to vote, but not mature enough to watch the campaign unfold on social media.

It’s only a matter of timing, for it's highly likely the voting age for Westminster elections will soon be 16 and that kids under 16 will be banned from social media platforms. 

One is about democracy, the other about protection - I agree with the fundamental importance of both

I also get that politics is messy, complicated, saturated with parties and campaigners, full  of personalities, competing policies and fiercely contested predictions of the future. And like it or not, social media platforms are a large part of the information ecosystem that underpins our democracy. 

I first voted in a general election mere weeks after I turned 18. For those 16 year olds voting for the first time in coming years, the ages of 14 and 15 are crucial. This is where these two policies leave a concerning democratic gap.

Schools can’t fill this gap. Even those with fantastic civic education curriculums cannot - and will not want to - replicate the exposure to political debate that social media provides. Especially the polarising disinformation, unattributed assertions and the sheer awful abuse that often occurs.

And there is no impartial alternative window into this debate.  

The commentary about Clacton is raging on social media. This is the democracy we have right now and no doubt will have up to and beyond the next UK general election. 

Are we sending our 16 and 17 year olds into the electorate while leaving them politically inexperienced? Are we creating a two-tier electorate? Or is there a way to reconcile these two policies?