And the reason is that those products are (rightly) regulated. Would there be beer marketed to kids if it were legal? Would it be fine if it were the parents' sole responsibility to ensure their kids weren't drinking beer, including at school, at friends' homes where the parents may have different rules, etc., absent a general social consensus that kids shouldn't have beer?

This is anecdotal evidence for the emerging consensus that social media is bad for you and especially for kids. There's a legitimate question whether the people pushing these products know this and don't care or actively suppress evidence.

Tobacco companies famously did this and it caused a lot of harm. It's about that more than just a chance for a cheap shot "hypocrisy" accusation.

▲

sokoloff 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think social media has clear positive and negative aspects. That makes it closer to food than cigarettes in my mind.

We can all immediately conjure up images where food or social media has brought something positive into our lives.

News.yc is something I visit almost every day and it has added value to my life, including introducing me to a few people I’ve met in real life and to interesting tech.

Equally, we can all pretty readily conjure up images where excess food or social media has harmed people.

	▲	gregates 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed, it's still not exactly clear what the right place of social media in society is. Perhaps we could even get rid of some of its pernicious aspects without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even food is not unregulated! And not because too much food is bad for you, but because bad food can harm you. A disanalogy with food is that there are natural limits to how much food you can/want to eat at one time. Another is that food is necessary for life. Neither is true of social media.