> When the addictive factor is deliberately manufactured into a product (AKA engagement)

So, every product from every company ever. That's the goal of marketing, after all. Why not extend this law for everyone? Why can't I sue Lego because my son keeps insisting I buy them, or why can't I sue Budweiser because I keep finding myself buying their booze?

It's an unfairly targeted law to win easy political points, because everyone hates big social right now, but everyone loves Lego.

Spot on! These folks arguing for that kind of regulation, along with associated enforcement bureaucracy, are really arguing against freedom in the end. They may not have put 2+2 together yet, but I bet a lot of them haven't actually thought things beyond 1st order effects.

And considering the forum, a credible argument for everyone to sacrifice some of their freedom needs to clear a way higher bar.

Indeed, some of the smartest individuals in the world are hyper-optimizing their products for addictive properties with multi-armed bandit optimization strategies. The average overworked parent doesn’t have a chance in comparison.

If this law isn’t perfect and has some unintended side effects, we can adjust and stay flexible.

Hard disagree, this reeks of HN bias in my opinion in that the problem is clearly how disproportionately awesome tech and tech companies are. The problem is lazy parents. Everything described is a reasonable defense for why the product might be addictive but not for why parents are somehow unable to bar their child from it nor does it explain why parents are unwilling to take these measures. The reality from what I've seen of other parents at my children's schools is that most come at technology with the boomer mentality that treats having to learn new things as some sort of arduous feat and not a basic expectation of being a responsible caretaker.