> No, I hinted that families in which phenomena of wellbeing loss are caused by access to resources can be suspect of being dysfunctional, and I suggested that active control over bodily functions is basic and its defect abnormal. I also said that resources must be treated as such, and potential side effects managed

I still don't understand what you wanted to say with the analogy.

That people falling prey to social media in a manner similar to addiction would be comparable to not being able to control bodily functions?

If you wanted to say that broken families and a bad upbringing nurture all kinds of problems like this, and a good upbringing can help prevent them, I'd agree.

That doesn't mean there isn't a lot if grey area though. But mh, it seems that I just don't understand your point.

Also, I found using breathing as an example particularly strange, since it's an involuntary reflex and not learned in a family? Correct me there if this isn't true.

> That is another matter, but: the silence of Intellectuals has killed Democratic discourse. The vilest, lowest voices squeal, and nobody calls them with their own deserved names.

Yes and this happens not only but increasingly on Social Media.

I'm not even sure if I think such a law helps anyone, I just understand neither fear nor outrage over it.

In my view, it has no effect at worst, or positive effects in the best case.

Re: free speech, I brought that up because I wanted to understand where you are coming from with your comment and viewing such a law as a form of censorship was my best guess.