[analog31]

It seems like the things we ban for children are things that we might ban for everybody, but can get away with for children. Very few of those things are conclusively proven to be harmful -- perhaps firearms, motor vehicles, and smoking, and even those things put up a pretty good fight to stay alive as long as they did.

Smoking is an interesting case. Vanishingly few people who smoke learned to do so as adults. Virtually all started as kids. Likewise, virtually all marketing of smoking was directed towards kids. Banning smoking among kids had the side of effect of reducing it in adults without the impossibility of an overall ban.

Social media is an interesting example. Of course it influences behavior. That's its purpose. Otherwise all of the advertising revenue poured into the social media industry would be wasted. The most successful social media businesses I'm aware of all started being marketed primarily to young people.

[kalleboo]

It's a shame the age-scaled tobacco ban (I think it was proposed in the UK) never went though. You just start raising the legal age for tobacco by one year, every year. Eventually, nobody alive will still be a smoker and you can ban it outright without having taken it away from anyone.

[ravenical]

Seems to be going through: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3879

[ryandrake]

Talk about pulling the ladder up after you've climbed. Laws that apply to one cohort of adults but not another, based on just birthdate are incredibly unjust.

If smoking is bad enough to ban for Gen Z, it should be bad enough to ban for Boomers, too.

[jjgreen]

That's still planned in the UK; Conservatives and Labour are both filled with puritans.