zlacker

I think it’s probably important to define what “addictive” means with respect to social media. If it’s literally addictive in the same way opiates are (obviously to a lesser extent), e.g. the user cannot feasibly control the urge to continue consuming, then I think it’s very easy to agree it’s Bad and Wrong for the business owners to invest in making their product more addictive.

To your example if McDonalds added cocaine to their fries, we would likely agree that that’s wrong and we should stop that behavior, right?

If it’s more along the lines of addiction like “people love fast food” but aren’t actually physically addicted to it, then I think it’s fine that the business owners make it more delicious or “more addictive”. In that case I’d agree it’s likely on the consumer to make the call. (I’m going to gloss over the realities of the fast food industry preying on lower economic communities and pretend we’re operating in a vacuum where someone has equal agency/ability to go eat McD’s or eat a healthier alternative.)

>>khalil+(OP)
I can see where you're coming from, but just like opiates, you start using them if you want, and you are aware of the risks, which most people should be when it comes to social networks. I don't know if they are but if not, they should be forced to clearly state the risks of getting addicted.

As for your McDonalds argument, cocaine is illegal. I stated that as long as it was within the law, I saw no problem.

Food might not be the best comparison to use.

>>kyrers+To
I’d be interested to see the number of people who know the risks of opiates and the people who know the risks of social media. I would guess the latter is a pretty small minority. And for both, I’d venture for the people who do know they’re dangerous there’s a great disparity between how dangerous they think they are and how dangerous they actually are (i.e. they’re worse in reality).

As for the cocaine part, that’s immaterial to the thought experiment I proposed. I was just trying to delineate between true physical addiction and whatever makes me people want to eat unhealthy food. Say it’s something else that causes physical addiction but isn’t illegal.

>>khalil+bH1
> I’d be interested to see the number of people who know the risks of opiates and the people who know the risks of social media. I would guess the latter is a pretty small minority. And for both, I’d venture for the people who do know they’re dangerous there’s a great disparity between how dangerous they think they are and how dangerous they actually are (i.e. they’re worse in reality).

Agreed, that's why I think companies should be forced to clearly state them, but not forced to stop users from consuming.

Another avenue could be providing proper education to individuals regarding addiction to food, drugs, etc... But this is beyond my scope of understanding.

> As for the cocaine part, that’s immaterial to the thought experiment I proposed. I was just trying to delineate between true physical addiction and whatever makes me people want to eat unhealthy food. Say it’s something else that causes physical addiction but isn’t illegal.

My bad. I didn't get that. But I still think, assuming they clearly state the risk of physical addiction, they should be allowed to sell their fries.

Now, just to convey this one more time, it's a totally different situation if they use something illegal to make the fries addictive. They should be punished.