This will most likely end up like prop 65 where the warning will be completely ignored and if anything make make people not care about the important warnings li

This will most likely end up like prop 65 where the warning will be completely ignored and if anything make make people not care about the important warnings like on wine bottles. A surgeon general warning makes sense on a bottle of wine to prevent pregnant mothers from causing their children to have FAS or worse. I'm generally a proponent for government enforcing companies to improve consumer knowledge, but only for matters of simple fact such as nutrition labels or the recent ISP speed labels.[0] I could see such labels also making sense for eg. laptops or mobile phones, but there is no evidence that these manufactures are hiding these specs so it seems unnecessary. Similar arguments could also be made for movies and video games. In those cases, companies voluntarily provide age restrictions such as the MPA and ESRB rating systems. This is perhaps infeasible with mass user generated content like social media. However, I'm not sure the issue people have with social media is the "content rating" per se but other issues such as bullying or addiction (taking these claims at face value). Lastly, I have read that the evidence for a teen mental health crisis caused by social media is not as substantial as claimed in news media, but I haven't looked into it deeply. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/starting-today-isps-must-display-labels-with-price-speeds-and-data-caps/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/starting-today-i...