If the answer is that these media "hack" the human brain, then I don't think that banning the producers is the right way to go. The root cause is that people are too easily tricked. Banning the producers will only cause other media, such as YouTube or Facebook, to fill the gap.
I would say that the answer to solve this is education, but unfortunately many states have decided that education is the bad thing, instead of blantantly misleading information. Even if you could teach it successfully in school, how many adults are going to go back to school to learn the media they're consuming is bad? If you're an ardent fox news viewer, how will you view that information?
It's not a solve but it's a help.
I wouldn't say this is a great analogy, because leaded gas was the only gas available, and alternatives to cars were disappearing in many cities. If you wanted to participate in the economy, you pretty much had to use gasoline.
You could argue the market would have gone there anyways, but it's actually insane how much damage to human health and the environment was done in the interim until regulation forced the matter.
Although I don't have an opinion on this particular podcast situation, this statement doesn't hold any water. You are implying that if people do something, it must not be bad for them because.. people continue to do it.
There are tons of things people do that are objectively bad for them. Hard drugs (fentanyl, etc.) being an easy example.
In a liberal society we allow things we don't like in order to maintain individual freedom as a higher good than "perfect" society.
Those who do envision "perfect" society and pursue it with the power of the state are the worst sort of authoritarians, because it's all done "for your own good", no matter what you think.