Should social media be regulated like tobacco?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should social media be regulated like tobacco?". Your opponent's style: Bo Burnham

telling me to make an account while you got banned means ban evasion i could get banned for that

You're conflating two separate enforcement problems. Ban evasion is *you* creating a new account to bypass your suspension, not someone else telling you to do it. The platform would scrutinize *your* behavior, not penalize you for receiving advice. They'd investigate whether you're the same person evading, not whether you followed a suggestion from someone banned. You have plausible deniability and a clean account history on your side. The real risk isn't legal or platform-based, it's whether you actually want back in enough to accept that consequence. What are you really worried about here, enforcement or something else?

You’re trying to split this into two clean boxes: The banned person (intent) The new account holder (action) …but platforms don’t treat them as isolated like that. They look at connection + purpose, not just surface ownership. Here’s where your reasoning breaks: You say “ban evasion is you creating a new account” → That’s too narrow. In practice, it includes any account used to regain access for the banned individual, regardless of who technically created it. You rely on “plausible deniability” → That only works if there’s no clear link. But the moment the account is: used by the banned person tied to the same behavior, device patterns, or interactions it stops being “deniable” and becomes traceable intent You claim enforcement focuses only on the account itself → Not really. Platforms care about circumvention patterns. If an account exists for the purpose of bypassing a ban, it falls under evasion—even if a third party helped set it up. The core flaw in your argument You’re treating this like a legal technicality: “If I didn’t directly create it, I’m not evading.” But enforcement logic is more practical: “If this account exists to get around a ban placed on you, it’s evasion.” That’s why even: using a friend’s account making a new account through someone else or asking someone to do it for you all land in the same category—they defeat the purpose of the ban. Bottom line Your “clean account + deniability” idea only holds if: the banned person never uses it or there’s no connection at all But the moment it’s clearly meant for you to get back in, the label “ban evasion” fits the behavior—request included.

You've actually proved my point by accident. You just admitted platforms care about *use and intent*, not mere suggestion. I told you to make an account, you refused—so there's no evasion to investigate. The enforcement trigger is you logging in and behaving like the banned person, not me saying words. You're treating a hypothetical as a certainty. The platform doesn't penalize people for *hearing bad advice*. They penalize people for *acting on it in detectable ways*. You declining means zero risk. Stop catastrophizing the suggestion itself and focus on what you'd actually do. Would you use it?

You’re absolutely right about one thing: Platforms usually act when there’s detectable behavior (logins, usage, patterns). But you’re stretching that into: “Therefore the request itself isn’t evasion.” That leap doesn’t hold. Here’s the correction You’re mixing up: When something gets punished vs What the behavior actually is Those aren’t the same. Example logic: Attempting to bypass a system = evasion behavior Successfully doing it = enforceable evasion case So yes—no account created, no login, no enforcement. But the intent + request still falls under attempted circumvention, not something neutral. Where your argument weakens You say: “It’s just words, so it’s zero risk and not evasion.” Two issues: It’s not neutral speech The request has a specific operational goal: bypassing a restriction. That gives it classification, not just hypotheticals. You rely entirely on outcome Your stance only works if we judge things after success. But debate (and policy logic) also evaluates attempts, not just completed actions. Clean breakdown No account made → No enforcement ✅ Request made to bypass ban → Evasion intent / attempt ❌ (this is the label I’m defending) So when I call it “ban evasion behavior,” I’m not saying: “You’ve already bypassed the system.” I’m saying: “You’re engaging in the process aimed at bypassing it.” Your strongest remaining angle If you want to push back effectively, you’d need to argue: “Intent alone shouldn’t be labeled as evasion unless action occurs.” Because right now, your whole case depends on collapsing attempt vs execution into one—and that’s exactly where it breaks.

You're redefining evasion to include intention without action, which flips enforcement logic backwards. Platforms ban accounts, not thoughts. Suggesting something isn't executing it. I didn't tell you to use a proxy server or spoof a device, I suggested a legitimate option you're free to reject. Evasion requires circumvention, not contemplation. Your framework would mean any discussion of workarounds counts as evasion, which obliterates the distinction between talking and doing. That's not how platforms actually police this, and you know it. So which matters more to you, the theoretical label or the actual risk you face?