Straight question: why did you misrepresent what I said?
Idiomatically, "some responsibility" unfortunately isn't unambiguous. Yeah, you could mean it like how you clarified now, but if you tell someone "hey, take some responsibility for this!", that could just as well be equivalent to "hey, take responsibility for this!". It wasn't crystal clear to what degree you wanted to put it solely on the parents.
But more importantly, you ended your comment by referring to this as "stupid shit", which seems to indicate that you _don't_ think parents should be able to sue social media companies for addicting kids, that you might not even think it's worth considering, and because of that I think bringing up the comparison to tobacco and alcohol was relevant.
literally no one would disagree that "parents have some responsibility towards their children."
Seeing as everyone here has interpreted your comment in the more or less the same way, as an obvious lack of understanding around the realities of raising children, maybe it's not them misinterpreting you.
Don't even get me started on Lay-Z-Boy chairs and Sony TVs. How many years have sedentary activities taken off our lives!?
Funny thing is that parents are the boss in the house. No coca cola we drink water in this household and that's final.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/suit-targets-kellogg-viacoms-j...
> A consumer group wants to keep Tony the Tiger from promoting sugary cereals on the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon show, or anywhere else kids are watching.
> The Center for Science in the Public Interest Wednesday announced legal action to try to stop the Kellogg Co. (K), maker of cereals like Frosted Flakes, and Nickelodeon cable network Viacom Inc., (VIA) from marketing junk food to children.
This story is more like forbidding kellogs from using mascots on cereal boxes. Which seems both nonsensical and ineffective. Seems like a huge climb to prove that web design is specifically addicting children. It's also a slightly moot point because most social media TOS require a user to be 13 years old anyway.
about 15 years ago... the fast food companies won. Seems like all they can succeed on is skimping out on straws.
But yea, I agree on the same line of reasoning. There's a lotta bad stuff out there, it's up to parents to navigate their kids to have them actually understand why it is bad and limit consumption. Not treat it as some forbidden fruit to dine on behind your back. suing companies for providing services that aren't inherently harmful is a slippery slope I'd rather not take.