HN and many tech-minded forums struggle the most with arguments that require empathy. For people who probably don’t consider themselves religious, their outlook is extremely Puritanical.

“I see you explaining why x is difficult for most people, but I don’t struggle with it so the difficulty is invalid.”

It’s not an empathy gap. It’s collectivism vs individualism.

Do you have any links to share that would corroborate your suggestion that social media is as addictive or hard to quit as heroin or tobacco? That’s quite a statement.

I find these two examples particularly interesting because the regulations have done absolutely nothing. Heroin has never been more popular or more regulated. Tobacco is lightly regulated and the declines in usage are almost completely attributed to campaigns against smoking, not the regulations themselves.

I'd start by questioning why you think addicts should discontinue their habits? Why do you think you know what's good for someone more than they do? If an addict says "I like my addiction, thank you very much", what gives you the right to intervene?

the societal cost is why intervention is justified. you know, the basis of all laws? we don't live in an anarchy. unless you live completely sustainably with no dependence or impact on others' resources, society has a right to intervene.

I don't think mitigating societal cost is source of the government's authority. It seems to be more about defending our inalienable rights.

Certainly societal costs can be a threat to our inalienable rights.