Why on earth are grownups using TikTok anyway?
This is a thread about government-aligned owners censoring content on a platform the government forced a sale of. The authoritarians already have the thing.
If you think a chemical directly manipulating the biochemistry of incentive salience, making you want something regardless of it's valance, is the same as eventually liking something you watch and hear that's actually rewarding, yes, there's not much conversation to be had. Lay interpretations of this field are not very useful.
My understanding is gambling disorder was promoted in the DSM-5 in 2013. When was it grandfathered?
The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. Are they captured as well?
Where should I look for a non-lay interpretation?
Kent Berridges' lab review articles are a great place to start to understand addiction, wanting, and liking and how they are different. But mostly importantly, how addiction works so you can see how chemical addictive substances are vastly different. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-art...
Edit: and re: "porn disorder/gaming disorder/behavioral impulse disorders to 'screens' in general" and the behavior of the ICD re: china, see the widely cited Nichole Prause' work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en
Thanks for sharing. I'll read Berridge.
The distinction you're drawing is mechanistic. I'm not submitting a paper to a journal. Kids are scrolling until 3am, teen mental health is cratering, boomers are getting radicalized by bot farms, and democracy is being sold for pennies on the dollar. If your response is 'technically not addiction,' we're not having the same conversation.
You've prescribed some outcomes: I am not saying you have not personally observed these things. I am saying they are not due to addiction and that using comparisons to addictive drugs and addiction implies that people have no volition when reading things or watching things on screens instead of, say, watching them in their environment directly. That's a very dangerous claim. If you think that it's okay to claim screens can make you do things and need to be regulated like addictive drugs, we are definitely not having the same conversation. You're advocating that text and video need to be regulated by government use of force and that's really dangerous and wrong.
I agree that the corporations pushing these propaganda machines are a huge problem. But it's not one involving addiction.
The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. The field is expanding. But even if it never formally recognizes social media addiction—call it whatever you want.
I'm assuming good faith, though you are putting words in my mouth. I said social media is a cheap, shitty, and extremely addictive drug. I'm happy to rephrase that to 'cheap, shitty, and extremely compulsive in ways that damage health, relationships, attention and has immensely negative effects for society as a whole.' I never once mentioned government regulation, you can reread my comments.
My opinion is that people should view it as lame and self regulate. I do not think it is likely to happen.
[1] https://www.icrg.org/blog/the-evolving-definition-of-patholo...
The argument that, "That brain brains when you $x." is so trivial and useless I usually assume it's done in bad faith. But you seem to be engaging on the level, so why?