First, thank you for responding to my points. I've read every reply in this thread and I think you're the first.

Criminalization is criminalization. If you don't like word "ban", please feel free to substitute "restriction", "regulation", "guardrails", or any other euphemism. A liquor restriction is drug prohibition even if you're still allowed to trade beer.

Yes, prohibition is fundamentally a conflict about state subjectivity. This is a critically under-developed aspect of virtually all democratic constitutions. That's not weird; those were developed before modern philosophy, and industry has in no small way distracted us from the development and implementation of philosophy. Industry has simultaneously provided a vector for a vast host of terrifying emerging behaviors. One of my central concerns is that prohibition is a vicious pattern that reemerges in a wide variety of domains. That's a key component of its entrenchment: we're usually too concerned with the symptom—perceived harmful behavior—to address the disease: moralization of the state and therefore the application of force.

Regarding pragmatism, let's remember that most prohibitive systems begin very reasonably: small, well-intentioned limits being enforced uniformly with apparent marginal success. The fundamental problem is that it's never as effective as everyone wants to believe (but few dare to promise) it will be. In combination with the precedent created by the first generation, this is a strong incentive for further prohibition. The topic at hand is a great example. I don't want to make doomsayer predictions but there's no way Norway is finished increasing the severity and complexity of their social media restrictions.

Prohibited behaviors are eventually driven underground, breaking the state's ability to measure them or track their mutation. When they reemerge, they are more concentrated. In The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton argues that crystal meth, crack cocaine, and the ever-expanding list of synthetic opioids with microscopic lethal doses are all the direct product of prohibition, especially law enforcement "crackdown".

You think Facebook was bad? Have you seen what people get up to on the image boards of the disenfranchised? Same concept. Norway's youth will flock to them. The state will crack down. I don't want to speculate about what will happen next.

There's much more to say on pragmatism and the quantifiable costs of increasing legal complexity and eroding the prosecutor's obligation to prove criminal intent. If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend The Overcriminalization of Social and Economic Conduct by Paul Rosenzweig.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-over-c...

Finally, you mentioned the specific perceived harms associated with social media. As I said, I think this is a narrow view. I don't want to discuss those any more than I want to discuss the harms of eating Tide Pods (Big Bleach Kills Kids! Parents Outraged! Twitch.TV Does Damage Control!) but I would like to point out that echo chambers and depression and anxiety are issues that exist independently of social media. When I say that the fundamental problem is an environment, I mean technology creates autonomous microcosms for which our existing defenses against the horrors of human existence are not adapted. In my view, the least wasteful solution is to develop the tools and skills required to navigate these microcosms.

I wouldn't ban prohibition, by the way. That would be paradoxical. I would focus on enhancing the democratic ability to dismantle legislation that didn't work according to the professed standards of its own advocates. It's funny being called an idealist for railing against moralization. I see how that perspective works, but please believe that my concerns are justice and viability.