As far as I can tell, even in US, the most litigious nation in the world, you can't SUCCESSFULLY sue e.g. a cigarette maker or alcohol maker for making you addicted.

(I emphasize successfully because of course you can sue anyone for anything. The question is what lawsuits are winnable based on empirical data of what lawsuits were won).

If you could, that would be the end of those businesses. The addiction is beyond dispute and if every alcoholic could win a lawsuits against a winemaker, there would be no winemakers left.

In that context it seems patently absurd that you could sue Facebook for making you addicted.

It would be absurd to create a law that makes it possible without first making such laws for alcohol and cigarettes.

It's also patently absurd that we (where "we" here is leftist politicians) are allowing open drug dealing in populated areas of San Francisco and yet this is what we discuss today and not politician's systemic failure to fix easily fixable problems for which we already have laws making them illegal.

▲

shakna an hour ago | parent [-]

Those companies are required to publicise the addictive nature of their products, and required to advertise services to aid those addicted.

Facebook consistently argues they are not a source of harm, and do none of that.

If the consumer isn't proactively being informed, then no, litigation isn't patently absurd.

"Informed consent" is what you're missing, here.

	▲	kjksf 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Since we're being condescending here: what you're missing is absence of laws making a given activity illegal. As far as I know there's no law that you could use to claim that Facebook did something illegal based on some notion of making addictive products. Just like there are no laws you could use to claim a winemaker did something illegal based on some notion of making addictive products. And I think it would be absurd to make what Facebook does illegal before we make what winemaker does illegal. And we tried with winemakers. Educate yourself on dark times of Prohibition. (you opened the condescension doors). > Those companies are required to publicise the addictive nature of their products, and required to advertise services to aid those addicted I've never seen such advertising so I suspect you pulled that factoid out of your ass. Easy for you to correct me: laws have numbers, cite one. If there is such law for say, alcohol, I wouldn't be opposed to such requirements for Facebook. I mean, it obviously would end up as ineffective annoyance that doesn't deter or fix anything, like cookie banners, but have at it. So yeah, it's still patently absurd to sue Facebook claiming addiction.