Look how well does banning specific parts of the internet work in places like Turkey or Russia or India or even China.
Look how well did banning of alcohol (which was a really problematic. destructive substance) work in the US.
Banning what people crave is a stopgap measure at best, and it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity, even while limiting its availability.
> it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity
Popularity be damned, cocaine doesn't need a publicist. Yet we ban it to maximize the number of hoops people have to jump through to obtain it. As a result, you can only get your hands on so much, and it will cost you. The "ban" rate-limits consumption.
All countries "ban specific parts of the internet" insofar as they have laws that make certain business models illegal and, those businesses being illegal, websites for them don't exist in the first place.
For instance, websites to sell your organs are "illegal" in America because buying organs from people isn't a legal business practice in America. That kind of business isn't allowed, therefore that kind of website doesn't exist.
So you don't ban social media websites; you ban social media business practices.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Totalitarians ban information, not economy, which is weak anyway. When they ban (or get banned), nothing happens. When US bans a social media giant, it immediately loses most of its value. When EU agrees, it goes bankrupt.
Look how well specific terms on pornsites were banned. E.g. young or sister.
Look how well did banning of alcohol (which was a really problematic. destructive substance) work in the US.
Banning what people crave is a stopgap measure at best, and it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity, even while limiting its availability.