I see where you are coming from, but this is different because:

1. The restaurant isn't lacing your food with cocaine

2. The author is incentivizing reading, which is generally a good thing

You are right, it is our job to control our information diet but when the ability to control is diminished through the consumption, then we have a problem which doesn't fit into the model of "get your shit together".

There's also a social responsibility you inherit when you start selling products that have harmful side-effects. Auto manufacturers have to comply with emission testing, drug makers have to prove efficacy, air conditioning manufacturers have to adhere to air quality standards etc. What do social media companies have to do? Very little if anything, and that's the problem. We've yet to find a counter-balance that works and protects the consumer, so we're in this era where we're trying to find out what we can do, but the landscape is changing so fast that we're trying to hit a moving target.

You do go to restaurants for food, you do buy books (story books at least) to be enchanted. And even then addictive substances are banned from food.

Not everyone goes to social media for entertainment, and there's no way to maintain hygiene apart from just going off it.

If you genuinely want to understand what we're talking about here, I suggest you read up on how certain behavior discharge dopamine on cue, how that builds tolerance and addiction. Then perhaps you understand the difference between this subject and the examples you gave.

This is a reductionist take on the problem. If I knowingly spike your drink with habit forming chemicals, and I don't tell you about it, am I in the wrong?

> Restaurants try to make food you will remember and want again.

> This postmodern social construction perspective that tries to blame everyone for our problems is a lame approach to the problem.

Restaurants get shut down when they don't match hygene and safety levels.