> You elect lawmakers. well I personally certainly don't. I have too little power to do that. > Fascinating. your response actually is! does not sound too genuine. > If you and I can agree that children shouldn't be in casinos, then they shouldn't be allowed *into* the casino. I am open to your suggestions. children shouldn't get uncontrolled access to smartphones. access needs to be controlled _by the parent_. For medicine and cleaning things most already know to place those items out of children's reach. from this aspect, we would need to tackle the problem that the children obtains the parent's phone. some small items, maybe cleaning appliances too, are made to have a bad bitter taste so that children don't want to put them in their mouth. according to that pattern, we would need to mandate that online services are ugly and irritating to use. but is that the solution we actually want? I don't think so. or could we just ban services that are tuned to make people addicted, like drugs? but how do we define that, and that too is a double edged sword. but ultimately, we either make casinos unattractive, or make the parents be the casinos' first line bouncers. the first one sounds good, but the internet and even social media is not only for taking advantage of people, contrary to casinos. the second one requires cooperation. how would you incentivise cooperation? tie benefits to it,or part of the benefits, through child protection services or something?