4 ms·

This is the crux of the issue. Anything can be classified as an addiction by the metrics being used, but certain things "don't count" as they've been classified

This is the crux of the issue. Anything can be classified as an addiction by the metrics being used, but certain things "don't count" as they've been classified as entirely good. The next question would be why. I'd argue that it might be (though I could be wrong on this, I haven't thought through all the possibilities) because the internet is new (or at least, the latest thing), whereas books are old. New thing bad, old thing good. For example, TV is seen as bad, but nowhere near as bad as the internet, but go back a few decades, and TV addiction is the hot issue to be solved. Perhaps if you go back far enough, you will find chess addiction or books addiction to be the hot issue.

skohan 5y ago
I think it's not as simple as that. Books don't have the same reward loop as the internet, so they're not "unnaturally compelling" to the same degree. To give a counter-analogy, at some point slot machines were new, and people might have lumped them in with the same category as chess: a fun game that you can play to pass the time. But eventually it was understood that slot machines have certain intrinsic properties which make them much harder to stop playing than chess for a lot of people, and we ended up regulating them because it was causing harm to society.
- nindalf 5y ago
  This is the case with almost anything - every addictive thing is addictive to varying degrees. The fact that many people are able to enjoy let’s say, alcohol responsibly doesn’t make it less intrinsically addictive to the other folks. And let’s take another example - sugar. I have a serious weakness for it. I just can’t stop with one of anything sweet. It’s better if I just don’t eat any of it. But that’s the addict in me talking, and I shouldn’t extrapolate my experience to the rest of society who are able to enjoy sugar responsibly. That’s where i disagree with your characterisation of the difference between chess and slot machines. It depend entirely on the person involved. Folks who can enjoy responsibly shouldn’t penalised because there are others who can’t. Btw, if you disagree with my characterisation of sugar as addictive, you don’t need it to survive. It’s perfectly possible to live on protein and fat alone. The withdrawal from sugar is painful, but it’s doable.
  - skohan 5y ago
    > That’s where i disagree with your characterisation of the difference between chess and slot machines. It depend entirely on the person involved. Folks who can enjoy responsibly shouldn’t penalised because there are others who can’t. Arguably we do have that with slot machines. If you want to go somewhere to gamble recreationally, you can book a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City. But we limit access because of the potential for harm. We don't let kids gamble, and I'm certain if every gas station was allowed to have a couple slot machines inside, we'd see a lot more people throwing their life savings away because their brains aren't wired in a way which lets them resist the compulsion. There's a spectrum in terms of how addictive things are, and how much harm they do which we use to determine how much we as a society deem it is responsible to limit access to these things in order to protect people and society as a whole. For instance, coffee is quite addictive, but it's not vary harmful, so access is pretty much free. Sugar is pretty addictive, but only slightly harmful, so it largely gets a pass. Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive and moderately harmful, so we keep them away from kids and tax them to make them more expensive and less attainable. Hard liquor is more harmful than beer and wine, so a lot of places restrict access to specific stores to make it harder to come by. And it might be the case that some people can enjoy heroin responsibly, but it's so strongly addictive, and so incredibly harmful that we make it illegal to obtain it at all - even that means "penalising" the few folks who could potentially enjoy it responsibly. I don't know where social media fits on that spectrum, but it is addictive, and it is at least worth considering how much harm is being done and whether we should think about regulating it.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      How are you measuring harm? By number of people who die? The cost to the healthcare system? If so I reckon the number of people suffering from diabetes vastly outnumbers those suffering from cirrhosis of the liver. Treating these people costs a lot. Certainly we should restrict access to sugar, or at least tax it. But in most places, such policies are non starters.
      - skohan 5y ago
        You may be right about the harm with sugar. I think it is probably way more toxic than we give it credit for, but it's difficult to imagine any kind of regulation around it since it's so ingrained in society. When NYC for example tried to tax sodas there was massive backlash. When a smoker gets lung cancer, we tend to blame tobacco, but when someone gets diabetes we blame the individual's lack of self control. That's probably not entirely justified given the addictive potential of refined sugar. But I think you're undercounting the harm caused by alcohol. There are diseases of abuse to consider, but the damage caused by alcohol is often more acute: traffic accidents and acts of violence are made much more likely by alcohol consumption. Similarly, I think the harm caused by social media is also under-counted. In it's current state, it seems to cause an increase in the spread of misinformation, and a decrease in political stability and social cohesion.
- bodge5000 5y ago
  > Books don't have the same reward loop as the internet That's quite a broad statement to make, as reading a PDF online is just as much a part of the internet as social media or anything else. Not every website has the same reward loop, not even close. But I'll assume your talking specifically about social media. Whilst that's a bit of a different conversation, I would argue that books are no more "naturally compelling" than social media. Something is only compelling because it triggers a dopamine hit or whatever, the only thing I can think of which would "naturally" do that is eating, drinking and maybe sleeping. But something being unnaturally compelling isn't a bad thing. > at some point slot machines were new Of course I'm not saying anything that is new is not addictive and we just don't know it yet, some things are. My point is that nearly every big leap forwards in technology or entertainment is branded as addictive until the next thing comes along. A few of those things are indeed proven to be addictive, others are used many generations later as the "pure" form of entertainment

skohan 5y ago

I think it's not as simple as that. Books don't have the same reward loop as the internet, so they're not "unnaturally compelling" to the same degree. To give a counter-analogy, at some point slot machines were new, and people might have lumped them in with the same category as chess: a fun game that you can play to pass the time. But eventually it was understood that slot machines have certain intrinsic properties which make them much harder to stop playing than chess for a lot of people, and we ended up regulating them because it was causing harm to society.

nindalf 5y ago
This is the case with almost anything - every addictive thing is addictive to varying degrees. The fact that many people are able to enjoy let’s say, alcohol responsibly doesn’t make it less intrinsically addictive to the other folks. And let’s take another example - sugar. I have a serious weakness for it. I just can’t stop with one of anything sweet. It’s better if I just don’t eat any of it. But that’s the addict in me talking, and I shouldn’t extrapolate my experience to the rest of society who are able to enjoy sugar responsibly. That’s where i disagree with your characterisation of the difference between chess and slot machines. It depend entirely on the person involved. Folks who can enjoy responsibly shouldn’t penalised because there are others who can’t. Btw, if you disagree with my characterisation of sugar as addictive, you don’t need it to survive. It’s perfectly possible to live on protein and fat alone. The withdrawal from sugar is painful, but it’s doable.
- skohan 5y ago
  > That’s where i disagree with your characterisation of the difference between chess and slot machines. It depend entirely on the person involved. Folks who can enjoy responsibly shouldn’t penalised because there are others who can’t. Arguably we do have that with slot machines. If you want to go somewhere to gamble recreationally, you can book a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City. But we limit access because of the potential for harm. We don't let kids gamble, and I'm certain if every gas station was allowed to have a couple slot machines inside, we'd see a lot more people throwing their life savings away because their brains aren't wired in a way which lets them resist the compulsion. There's a spectrum in terms of how addictive things are, and how much harm they do which we use to determine how much we as a society deem it is responsible to limit access to these things in order to protect people and society as a whole. For instance, coffee is quite addictive, but it's not vary harmful, so access is pretty much free. Sugar is pretty addictive, but only slightly harmful, so it largely gets a pass. Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive and moderately harmful, so we keep them away from kids and tax them to make them more expensive and less attainable. Hard liquor is more harmful than beer and wine, so a lot of places restrict access to specific stores to make it harder to come by. And it might be the case that some people can enjoy heroin responsibly, but it's so strongly addictive, and so incredibly harmful that we make it illegal to obtain it at all - even that means "penalising" the few folks who could potentially enjoy it responsibly. I don't know where social media fits on that spectrum, but it is addictive, and it is at least worth considering how much harm is being done and whether we should think about regulating it.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    How are you measuring harm? By number of people who die? The cost to the healthcare system? If so I reckon the number of people suffering from diabetes vastly outnumbers those suffering from cirrhosis of the liver. Treating these people costs a lot. Certainly we should restrict access to sugar, or at least tax it. But in most places, such policies are non starters.
    - skohan 5y ago
      You may be right about the harm with sugar. I think it is probably way more toxic than we give it credit for, but it's difficult to imagine any kind of regulation around it since it's so ingrained in society. When NYC for example tried to tax sodas there was massive backlash. When a smoker gets lung cancer, we tend to blame tobacco, but when someone gets diabetes we blame the individual's lack of self control. That's probably not entirely justified given the addictive potential of refined sugar. But I think you're undercounting the harm caused by alcohol. There are diseases of abuse to consider, but the damage caused by alcohol is often more acute: traffic accidents and acts of violence are made much more likely by alcohol consumption. Similarly, I think the harm caused by social media is also under-counted. In it's current state, it seems to cause an increase in the spread of misinformation, and a decrease in political stability and social cohesion.
bodge5000 5y ago
> Books don't have the same reward loop as the internet That's quite a broad statement to make, as reading a PDF online is just as much a part of the internet as social media or anything else. Not every website has the same reward loop, not even close. But I'll assume your talking specifically about social media. Whilst that's a bit of a different conversation, I would argue that books are no more "naturally compelling" than social media. Something is only compelling because it triggers a dopamine hit or whatever, the only thing I can think of which would "naturally" do that is eating, drinking and maybe sleeping. But something being unnaturally compelling isn't a bad thing. > at some point slot machines were new Of course I'm not saying anything that is new is not addictive and we just don't know it yet, some things are. My point is that nearly every big leap forwards in technology or entertainment is branded as addictive until the next thing comes along. A few of those things are indeed proven to be addictive, others are used many generations later as the "pure" form of entertainment