This is a terrible proposal in it's intent and it's even worse in how it could be implemented. I see everyone here boldly claiming that a particular type of web

This is a terrible proposal in it's intent and it's even worse in how it could be implemented. I see everyone here boldly claiming that a particular type of website is "bad" (???) for people but I've never seen that causal link backed up in any reputable journal. What does "bad" (???) even mean? Websites are not drugs. Websites do not directly manipulate incentive salience and throw the brain's motivations out of wack like, say, cocaine or methamphetamine or tobacco do. Websites have to actually be enjoyable intrinsically before they alter your motivations. This is very unlike drugs. Trying to pass legislation like this that pretends people are without volition signals a far deeper danger: that the state no longer considers people to have volition and that it will force them to make the "correct" decisions. That's appropriate re: some drugs but entirely unjustified here.