Addiction, Regulation, and Social Media

This is a brief argument. Note that I mean the term "regulation" very broadly, to include "sin taxes" and other such non-regulatory pressures placed, by the government, on things because "we" disapprove of them.

Premise: we regulate (in this broad sense) addictive substances.
Premise: social media platforms are addictive.
Conclusion: we should regulate (in this broad sense) social media.

Now, there are some obvious objections. For one, we do not regulate all addictive substances, nor do we regulate them simply because they are addictive. For instance, coffee is addictive, yet basically unregulated in this way. Rather, we regulate substances which are particularly dangerous, and we particularly regulate dangerous substances which are addictive. Nevertheless, social media, at least broadly, seems to qualify. I doubt I need to link to the research on how social media tends to significantly affect markers of depression, or the ways that social media has corroded connection and aided the production of epistemic bubbles. So, the altered form of the argument goes:

P: we regulate dangerous addictive substances.
P. social media platforms are dangerous and addictive
C: we should regulate social media platforms

Now, some will object that we ought not regulate dangerous addictive substances because it infringes on the liberty of consumers. The view seems to be that consumers should be trusted to exercise their liberty according to their own views of their best interests. This view strikes me as a little bizarre in this case, since the whole point is that these substances in particular are capable of subverting what rationality we do have. It does not seem to be conducive to liberty to permit people to easily enslave themselves to dangerous addictive substances any more than it would be to permit them to easily enslave themselves to other humans. The regulation's purpose in these cases is to preserve liberty.

If one accepts this argument, then the chief puzzle is how one goes about regulating, in this sense, something like Facebook or Twitter. The kinds of regulations we have used for dangerous addictive substances in the past are not easily applicable to an ethereal substance which is accessible anywhere without paying money. Even a "no Facebook zone" would be hard to enforce. One might attempt requirements on applications designed to reduce either the harmful effects or the degree of addictiveness, although these will need to be constantly updated to keep up with new developments, making it an arms race between social media companies and regulators.

Another option might be to provide just enough nominal regulation to get the point across that social media usage is a dangerous addictive substance, and thus should be engaged in only in moderation. The aim here would be to change social attitudes toward social media usage, making it more socially acceptable to try to avoid social media usage, less socially acceptable to appear addicted to it, etc. This kind of tactic could operate without the regulation, of course, provided a sufficient number of people began expressing such views. I would almost be surprised if this is not the direction we are moving in. Social media addiction may soon be regarded similarly to alcoholism: both are addictive, correlated with depression, and isolating.