3 ms·

I find the premise ridiculous. I mean yes, there are people who are addicted to it. There are people who are addicted to lots of things, from playing video game

by smsm42 5y ago

I find the premise ridiculous. I mean yes, there are people who are addicted to it. There are people who are addicted to lots of things, from playing video games to climbing ice-covered mountains. But the idea that it's harder to quit facebook than to get rid of, say, opioid dependency - which literally rewires your body's biochemistry - sounds like complete BS. Of course, if your life is so empty you have nothing to do but browse facebook, sure it's hard to quit, but it's not because of the strength of the addiction, it's because of the weakness of the alternative. I'm sure if you cut off that person's internet access and threw their phone into a lake, they'd be cured pretty soon.

betwixthewires 5y ago
I don't disagree with you, but I felt the need to point out the positive feedback loop in the scenario you laid out, that is, the more time you use Facebook the less you spend in your real life and so the alternative becomes weaker even if it was strong when you started. People who use Facebook compulsively didn't start out with no friends and family, if they had they'd have had no reason to create an account on the first place.
- smsm42 5y ago
  Well, yes, but that's true with pretty much everything. If you're addicted to reading Clancy novels, you spend more time reading Clancy novels and less time talking to friends, therefore Clancy novels are more addictive than heroin. Sounds ridiculous, right? Yes, there's a positive feedback dynamic in any addiction, every basic text on it mentions it. But that's no reason to jump to "most people never would be able to get rid of the habit". This dynamic can be overturned, and there are many tools to do it, and in this particular case it's easy - you body won't disintegrate and you would not feel like armies of Hell descended on you to torture you if you don't use facebook for a week.
gotostatement 5y ago
This has the same energy as the cigarette lobbyist in congress who talked about how smoking lettuce has the same health effects as smoking tobacco
- smsm42 5y ago
  This comment makes absolutely no sense. It looks like you are just seeking to associate me with something you consider bad (e.g. tobacco lobbyists) by something like "tobacco lobbyists are arguing they are right, this guy argues he's right, therefore clearly they are the same". Could you address the content of my argument instead?
  - gotostatement 5y ago
    The cigarette lobbyist is making a specious argument comparing cigarettes to lettuce in order to exonerate cigarettes, despite that noone smokes lettuce, lettuce is not addictive, and it's just totally different altogether. Similarly, your comment is trying to exonerate Facebook by comparing addictive Facebook use to... regular, "addictive" participation in healthy, fun physical activities? Despite the fact that it is a completely different situation: Facebook deliberately tries to be addictive, there are numerous studies about the negative effects of excess Facebook use, there are no physical health benefits, etc. So I was just saying that your argument is as specious and nonsequitur as the tobacco lobbyist.
barbs 5y ago
> if your life is so empty you have nothing to do but browse facebook, sure it's hard to quit, but it's not because of the strength of the addiction, it's because of the weakness of the alternative. "Weakness of the alternative" is a large reason people get addicted to things in the first place. It goes hand in hand.
- smsm42 5y ago
  Of course. But the addiction supported by physiological mechanisms (like opiates, alcohol, nicotine, barbiturates, etc.) or powerful psychological one (gambling, risk) is much stronger than just "I am bored, why don't I browse Facebook".

by smsm42 5y ago

betwixthewires 5y ago

I don't disagree with you, but I felt the need to point out the positive feedback loop in the scenario you laid out, that is, the more time you use Facebook the less you spend in your real life and so the alternative becomes weaker even if it was strong when you started. People who use Facebook compulsively didn't start out with no friends and family, if they had they'd have had no reason to create an account on the first place.

smsm42 5y ago
Well, yes, but that's true with pretty much everything. If you're addicted to reading Clancy novels, you spend more time reading Clancy novels and less time talking to friends, therefore Clancy novels are more addictive than heroin. Sounds ridiculous, right? Yes, there's a positive feedback dynamic in any addiction, every basic text on it mentions it. But that's no reason to jump to "most people never would be able to get rid of the habit". This dynamic can be overturned, and there are many tools to do it, and in this particular case it's easy - you body won't disintegrate and you would not feel like armies of Hell descended on you to torture you if you don't use facebook for a week.

gotostatement 5y ago

This has the same energy as the cigarette lobbyist in congress who talked about how smoking lettuce has the same health effects as smoking tobacco

smsm42 5y ago
This comment makes absolutely no sense. It looks like you are just seeking to associate me with something you consider bad (e.g. tobacco lobbyists) by something like "tobacco lobbyists are arguing they are right, this guy argues he's right, therefore clearly they are the same". Could you address the content of my argument instead?
- gotostatement 5y ago
  The cigarette lobbyist is making a specious argument comparing cigarettes to lettuce in order to exonerate cigarettes, despite that noone smokes lettuce, lettuce is not addictive, and it's just totally different altogether. Similarly, your comment is trying to exonerate Facebook by comparing addictive Facebook use to... regular, "addictive" participation in healthy, fun physical activities? Despite the fact that it is a completely different situation: Facebook deliberately tries to be addictive, there are numerous studies about the negative effects of excess Facebook use, there are no physical health benefits, etc. So I was just saying that your argument is as specious and nonsequitur as the tobacco lobbyist.

barbs 5y ago

> if your life is so empty you have nothing to do but browse facebook, sure it's hard to quit, but it's not because of the strength of the addiction, it's because of the weakness of the alternative. "Weakness of the alternative" is a large reason people get addicted to things in the first place. It goes hand in hand.

smsm42 5y ago
Of course. But the addiction supported by physiological mechanisms (like opiates, alcohol, nicotine, barbiturates, etc.) or powerful psychological one (gambling, risk) is much stronger than just "I am bored, why don't I browse Facebook".