Put more generally: How much should we protect people from themselves?
In the not-so-distant past, I'm guessing, the answer to that for most people was: Very little. After all, adults are capable and expected to make rational choices and do so every day; for themselves, and the people they cate about. So giving them more options is just helpful...
But the past few decades have perhaps opened our eyes. From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use.
It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. At least when they are put up aginst corporations who employe armies of professional mind hackers whos sole job is to make them lose the battle.
So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law.
And still, though we've realized the stakes are higher than we first thought, the right moral choice is unclear. Perhaps the idea of protecting ourselves from commercial predetors should be seen as childishly quixotic as the idea of protecting Deer from lions. Especially since the "Lions" are us too. We (though in smaller numbers) are also the benefactors of these questionable actions.
But then again, no one likes to be prohibited from doing what they want, and that's a great, and fairly new, right that we have (with restrictions of course). We should be quick to hamper it.
Good question...