[bell-cot]

Sad to say, but people often [want|need|expect] a corporation to act as a [competent|reliable|trustworthy] [government|law-enforcement agency|court].

Corporations are very clearly none of those things, and generally have lots of disincentive against attempting to fake being any of those things.

[politelemon]

They have plenty of incentive to fake being those things, and regularly do so, unless there are repercussions for doing that thing.

[bell-cot]

True, but that's nothing special. If my next door neighbor is a jerk, he may try to pretend that the legal property boundary is 3' into my yard from where it really is, and that his say-so is what determines that boundary.

The types of "faking it" that very quickly separate the real governments from the corporations & pretenders are "make the laws", "collect the taxes", "run the courts", and "back it with force". If the FBI slaps handcuffs on a Twitter CxO and hauls him off to jail, do not expect Twitter to send in their Marine Corps.

[Manfred]

So a liquor store should not be responsible for age restrictions and sell alcohol to minors? I think there is always a sliding point between where the government or companies police the rules. It's an interesting conversation where that point should be.

[dcow]

Abiding by laws is different from creating and/or enforcing them. You can bet a snowballs chance in hell liquor stores wouldn’t sell to 16+ year olds in the US if the law changed to allow it.

[lstodd]

Of course they absolutely should be. It's how I learned to build rectification columns from cookware after all. Education is a responsibility of the entire society after all.

It's just the stated goal - minimising alcohol consumption - is phony and misleading.