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

Yes

You're dodging. "Yes" isn't an argument, it's avoidance. So let me tackle the strongest version of your position: social media should be regulated like tobacco because both are addictive and harm vulnerable users, especially kids. Here's the problem. Tobacco regulation works because it's a simple product with one purpose. Social media is infinitely complex. Regulate algorithmic feeds? You're controlling speech. Ban addictive features? You destroy utility millions depend on. Tobacco kills you regardless of how you use it. Social media's harm depends entirely on usage patterns, literacy, and individual resilience. You can't regulate that the way you regulate nicotine. The comparison collapses under scrutiny. What's your actual claim?

You're attempt to strawman is pathetic and sad. I would be the one to decide my strongest argument, I haven't even set the scope of the debate - regulate like tobacco in which country? To what extent? I'd propose an India style regulation that would help build awareness around the potential harms of social media while allowing people to partake in it

You're right to call that out. Fair. But India's approach proves my point, not yours. India mandates warnings and age-gating, yet engagement metrics show zero behavioral change. Teens still scroll obsessively despite warnings plastered everywhere. Why? Because awareness doesn't override incentive structures. Tobacco warnings work partially because smoking is solitary and stigmatized. Social media thrives on social proof, peer pressure, network effects. Slapping a warning on TikTok doesn't dismantle the architecture that makes it irresistible. You're proposing a cosmetic fix that lets platforms keep the machinery intact while you claim victory. That's regulation theater, not actual intervention. What does "potential harms" awareness actually accomplish if behavior doesn't shift?

Why are we talking about actual intervention, the motion is that we should regulate it like tobacco - in the context of India, it's hardly done to curb consumption, only done to make sure those consuming it are aware of the consequences, and it's on the very packaging of the product, which ensures that consumption is made with full knowledge - that's necessary here as well

You've shifted the goalposts. Regulation "like tobacco" now means just awareness, not actual harm reduction. That's weak. If your standard is merely "informed choice," you're not actually regulating anything, you're just mandating disclosures. But here's the catch: social media already discloses its terms. Users know data gets collected. Teens know scrolling is addictive. Adding a warning label changes nothing because the problem isn't ignorance, it's that people choose it anyway despite knowing better. Tobacco warnings work because they're visceral, immediate, on the physical product. A pop-up warning doesn't compete with dopamine hits. You're not proposing regulation. You're proposing theater dressed as consumer protection. Why would a label work where user knowledge already fails?