[arijun]

That seems like a really bad excuse to void responsibility. Consider a cigarette maker:

1. We sell cigarettes to make money

2. The more people crave cigarettes, the more money we can make

3. Should we make cigarettes less appealing to children? Absolutely not, we would make less money. Parents should just stop their kids from buying cigarettes.

Also, people in there last few decades have been using “duty to shareholders” as a way to excuse bad behavior, as if it’s a moral imperative higher than all others. I don’t really see why it would.

[parsimo2010]

Cigarette companies were not penalized for making addictive drugs or doing generally immoral but technically legal things. They were penalized because the USA had set a minimum age for smoking cigarettes, and they were marketing directly to people who could not legally buy their products, and there was conclusive proof that they were targeting minors with their ads.

The DIRECT comparison from my previous comment would be if a country set a legal age requirement for accessing social media, and then you could hold the social media companies if they continued marketing to them. But for now, no such law exists in the USA. Social media has not been regulated like tobacco, because Congress has abdicated its responsibility to regulate these companies.