> Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people

> Meta (and other social media) needs regulation

The first obvious flaw in your logic is that you jumped from "Facebook causes harm" to "other social media needs regulation".

It should be obvious why that's broken logic.

The second problem is that this is just the classic "think of the children" fallacy: You point out a problem, say it affects children, and then use that to shut down any debate about regulation. It creates a wide open door for intrusive regulation.

This isn't new. It's been going on for decades. Yet people still walk right into this trap over and over again.

So to answer your question:

> Which step in this logic do you not accept?

The step I don't accept is the real core of the problem: The specifics of the regulation, but you conveniently stopped your logic chain before getting to that.