Engagement optimizers may as well be paperclip optimizers. These systems don't have human values and will go far beyond what any person thinks is reasonable.
Look how well did banning of alcohol (which was a really problematic. destructive substance) work in the US.
Banning what people crave is a stopgap measure at best, and it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity, even while limiting its availability.
> it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity
Popularity be damned, cocaine doesn't need a publicist. Yet we ban it to maximize the number of hoops people have to jump through to obtain it. As a result, you can only get your hands on so much, and it will cost you. The "ban" rate-limits consumption.
For instance, websites to sell your organs are "illegal" in America because buying organs from people isn't a legal business practice in America. That kind of business isn't allowed, therefore that kind of website doesn't exist.
So you don't ban social media websites; you ban social media business practices.
Look how well specific terms on pornsites were banned. E.g. young or sister.
A world without social media algorithmic feeds would be extremely tolerable and even better for the vast majority of people in the world.
A world without semiconductors would not be.
Also, a ban on semiconductors is not possible while one on algorithmic For You feeds isn’t just possible but would be fairly trivial requiring only the passage of a handful of bills across a handful of major countries, before it spread across the world.
I also disagree that legislation is just that easy. Many proposed laws to restrict social media are unconstitutional under the 1st amendment.
And to those who dislike algorithmic feeds I say “speak for yourself.” Banning them would be like banning ESPN because sports are a waste of of time.