What is wrong with junk food providers considering the impact on the health of their customers? Why should social media companies not worry about the mental health of the user?
And what the available alternatives are.
Paints (other than interior house paints and other stuff that was already bottom of the barrel) were pretty crappy (or insanely expensive) for 20yr after they banned lead. It had its costs but paint isn't thaaaaat big of a deal to the world so it was fine.
Second of all, yeah, cheaper product at the expense of the consumer’s health is not an okay step. But yet again it is supposed to be the government’s job to blacklist some ingredients, mandate proper labeling of them, as well as the amount of energy/minerals contained.
Good news, we don't have to! We just need to tax harmful things to cover the cost of their externalities, e.g. junk food should be taxed to pay for the burden it places on the healthcare system; the same goes for cigarettes; carbon emissions should be taxed to cover the cost of subsequent extraction; and so on.
> It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design.
Erm, what? You started by arguing against stricter laws (framed in a JAQing off manner); then blame weak laws for not preventing the damage. How does that make any sense?
> It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design.
The laws should include not knowingly causing harm to the people if there are alternatives available.
> This seems like a slippery slope.
Courts are there to weight the obligations put on companies and rights of individuals. As long as judicial system works, there is no slippery slope.
If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.