zlacker

Different words with different definitions. Who cares if people like to use it if it's addictive?

"Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences." Wikipedia

>>lallys+(OP)
Honest question though, if we were to dig into “brain disorder”, how well defined is that really? Is there a measurable effect on a human brain when using an “addictive” product vs. one we are coming back to because we like to use it?

>>kbos87+X1
At least with tobacco there’s good evidence of chemical dependency on nicotine. That IMO is what distinguishes that from whatever moral panic people are into at the moment.

>>kbos87+X1
The dividing line over whether an addiction or behaviour is "bad" is whether or not it negatively affects your life and/or the lives of those around you.

https://www.asam.org/Quality-Science/definition-of-addiction

>>ls612+r3
Even chemical dependency is more complicated than initially thought. See the rat park experiment.

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-tea...

>>dwiel+me
That's a really good analogy for algorithmic tweaks to your timeline to promote engagement. Replace incendiary content with drugs, and community/enriching content with... well, community and enriching activities... and it really does look like fb is doing its best to replicate the "empty cage with a bottle of heroin" environment on your phone.