Your comment is a little nonsensical. Again, I think your core issue is confusion over what addiction is and is not. Looking forward to the next TV episode is not addiction either.
Don’t you care about spreading misinformation online?
I think your core issue is confusion over what addiction is and is not.
That’s right. Because if your definition of addiction is broad enough to include compulsive use of social media, there’s a lot of scope for confusion. That is a case of media companies using psychological tricks to get their users/viewers coming back for more, which is not fundamentally different from a lot of TV programming techniques. There are variations of degree or complexity, but it’s the same game, and one which we’ve routinely accepted for years.
Don’t you care about spreading misinformation online?
Yes, I don’t believe there is a line such as you have mentioned because the difference between engagement and compulsion is only a matter of degree and varies from one individual to another. Indeed the link you gave illustrates how some individuals exhibit unhealthy compulsive behavior from overuse of an engaging product. Games are not generally considered to be “addictive” in the sense that it would warrant legal sanctions. The same could be said of social media addiction.
For clarity, I’m just talking about addiction here, not any of the other problems such as disinformation or active promotion of unhealthy or dangerous behavior. I think it’s odd that the reporting is primarily focused on addiction, because it’s the totality of these things that really makes it worthy of legal intervention.
Your comment is a little nonsensical. Again, I think your core issue is confusion over what addiction is and is not. Looking forward to the next TV episode is not addiction either.
Don’t you care about spreading misinformation online?
That’s right. Because if your definition of addiction is broad enough to include compulsive use of social media, there’s a lot of scope for confusion. That is a case of media companies using psychological tricks to get their users/viewers coming back for more, which is not fundamentally different from a lot of TV programming techniques. There are variations of degree or complexity, but it’s the same game, and one which we’ve routinely accepted for years.
How is that relevant?
We disagree on whether (or where) there is a line between compelling engagement and engineered compulsion/addiction. If you or anyone else is interested in authoritative insights on this, here’s a good starting point: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/addictive-behaviours-gaming-disorder
Yes, I don’t believe there is a line such as you have mentioned because the difference between engagement and compulsion is only a matter of degree and varies from one individual to another. Indeed the link you gave illustrates how some individuals exhibit unhealthy compulsive behavior from overuse of an engaging product. Games are not generally considered to be “addictive” in the sense that it would warrant legal sanctions. The same could be said of social media addiction.
For clarity, I’m just talking about addiction here, not any of the other problems such as disinformation or active promotion of unhealthy or dangerous behavior. I think it’s odd that the reporting is primarily focused on addiction, because it’s the totality of these things that really makes it worthy of legal intervention.