You aren't following the news - adult smoking is being outlawed in the UK as we speak - so, your analogy is against you position but supports the person you're criticizing.

More importantly, smoking is a well defined activity but "social media" is anything but - using your analogy, "social media" can be everything from milk to veges to plain water - all of which you want to ban because they're all sold in the same stores where cigarettes are sold. In other words - starve the kids.

Further, school and legacy media can be more toxic than a well designed social media site for kids - vague bans leave the door open to legacy toxicity while closing it to web-based media that could counter the bad sources.

It's far better to focus on toxicity, identify what is "smoking" and what not, regardless of where the "tobacco" might be hidden. After some consensus is achieved, go after the providers, the same way the tobacco companies were sued onto oblivion.

Why do so many people go after the kids instead of after the providers? Too chicken to take on the big ones?