> Companies build what consumers want.

Note how circular this is. You say "consumers", not people. Who is a consumer is also defined by said companies.

Companies build what consumers want.

You aren’t locked into Heroin. Don’t use it.

Consumers vote with their dollars.

So, if you’ve got a better idea, synthesize it and see if they come.

I get they both are "addictive" given the broad sense of the term. Yes, your brain gets a little reward with each refresh. But I don't think it's fair to compare the addictive nature of social media to heroin. (Let alone their impact on people's lives. But even putting that aside.)

Do you really think social media and heroin should be regulated at all similarly?

Yeah social media is more like alcohol. Feels good in the moment, leaves a hangover if you stay away for any meaningful amount of time, is completely legal and generates a lot of profits and tax revenue. We all know it's bad for us and society at large, yet most of us can't stop using it. Can lubricate social relations but also potentiates abuse.

Time to take some personal responsibility!!!

It’s only social media.

We’ve gone way too far in needing others to help us.

“Someone help me stop using [favorite social media company]”

> Companies build what consumers want.

This isn't at all true. If it were, WeWork and Uber and Doordash would all be profitable and wouldn't need eye-watering levels of subsidies. Companies build whatever the purse strings holder is comfortable with them building.

Sure, people try all kinds of ideas…. The “Uber of…”

I suppose I should have said “successful companies”

Companies can and do succeed selling things people don't really want.

> Companies build what consumers want.

AFAIK uber/doordash are profitable on a per unit basis in most developed markets, it's just a combination of marketing spend in new markets and extravagant developer salaries that make them lose money.