I kinda feel this is the kind of escalation that also paralyses discourse when dealing with corporate behavior that affects society as a whole. We would really benefit a from "nudge"/"don't promote" approach to first limit impacts, without bringing all the ban and censorship drama in it as long as the option is not on the table.

PS we should ban the Wikipedia article on market failures though, can't have people reading that.

I don't think cigarette advertising is worse than either cigarette selling or cigarette smoking. Under the rubric of "this is currently a bad thing, lets address it now" there's actually no escaping a slippery slope.

And "We cannot ban anything because someone people might eventually ban the wrong thing" is a strawman. The people doing the banning will think it's the right thing.

I'll use this conversation as an example to demonstrate the absurdity. If you accept someone's argument on one topic then you may find yourself agreeing with other things they say including some terrible conclusions. Therefore, it's better to never accept anyone's argument. There are much better ways to discern whether to accept or reject an argument.