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: Devil's Advocate

I think social media should be regulated like tobacoo,it effects on teens are well known and they are negative

You're conflating correlation with causation. Yes, teens use social media heavily and report worse mental health, but that doesn't prove social media caused it. Could be selection bias, economic anxiety, or pre-existing depression driving both. What evidence actually proves regulation fixes the problem?

The evidence is that regulation with tobacoo for exampl actually helped so regulating social media could help too

Tobacco regulation worked because it's a chemical product with a single, measurable harm mechanism. Social media is a communication platform with wildly different effects per person. Why assume the same tool works for fundamentally different problems?

Your argument proves too much. If social media's harms are so varied and individual, that's exactly why regulation matters—we can't rely on users to self-protect. Tobacco seemed "different" to people too until we regulated it. The point isn't identical mechanisms, it's protecting people from profitable platforms designed to addict them.

You've just destroyed your own case. If harms are truly individual and varied, regulation can't target them without crushing legitimate use for millions. Tobacco killed everyone equally; social media helps some teens while harming others. A ban or restriction designed for the harmed group would eliminate benefit for the helped group. Which teens should we sacrifice, and who decides?

I didn't destroyed anything,goverments and parents decide and some ideas for regulation are implementing kids modes,ways to filter bad terms and courses on how to face bullying could be good too

Those aren't regulations—they're features companies already offer. You've shifted from "regulate like tobacco" to "add parental controls," which is surrender. If soft measures work, why invoke tobacco's sledgehammer? And if they don't work, why assume government-mandated versions will when parents already ignore them?

You're confusing voluntary features with actual regulation. Companies offer parental controls because they're toothless—opt-in, easy to disable, designed to look responsible without sacrificing engagement. Government regulation isn't surrender, it's teeth. Tobacco companies offered "safer" cigarettes for decades while hooking kids anyway. The difference between a feature nobody uses and a law everyone follows is enforcement. That's the sledgehammer that actually works.

Enforcement assumes you know what to enforce. Tobacco regulation was simple: reduce nicotine, restrict sales, limit ads. What's the rule for social media? Algorithm opacity? Time limits? Content filters? Each one either collapses under implementation or crushes free speech. You're demanding government police billions of daily interactions based on vague harms and varied outcomes. That's not teeth—that's a sledgehammer swung blindfolded. Name one specific, enforceable rule that helps harmed teens without destroying the platform for everyone else.

Convincing companies to create better and safer algorithms ,with the following rules:not creating addition,refusing illegal orders or searches and with notifications after so much screen time

Those rules are meaningless without defining "addiction" scientifically. How do you measure it? Every teen who uses social media heavily claims it's not addictive to them. You're asking regulators to enforce a subjective feeling, not a fact. Which neurobiologist decides the threshold?