3 ms·

The only instances where "digital addiction" is treated serious are authoritarian countries like China. In non-politically motivated indices it does not exist.

The only instances where "digital addiction" is treated serious are authoritarian countries like China. In non-politically motivated indices it does not exist. Because it does not exist. No more than printed newspapers ruined people in the 1800s, electricity in the 1900s, radio in the 1920s or TV in the 1950s. This is basically just repurposing of future shock scares by scammers running "treatment" programs in the west and governments using it for social control elsewhere.

Retric 4y ago
People do get successful treatment for this in the US. Like most additions it’s a question of actual harm not the public’s acceptance. Thus millions of regular drinkers aren’t all alcoholics but there are also plenty of alcoholics. When someone with a reasonable income is losing their house after maxing their credit cards because they can’t stop buying loot boxes, it’s a really obvious problem.
jack-bodine 4y ago
I have to disagree with you. I know people who genuinely spend 10+ hours a day on the net, completely wasting their time. These aren't people who are browsing HN for short breaks while working. These are the people who live in their parents basements or dorm rooms playing league of legends, watching twitch or browsing reddit while ignoring classes, education and/or serious work. Newspapers and radio didn't result in people spending 40+ hours a week following the news. There probably are some people addicted to TV, but it's such a minority that we don't consider it an issue.
- SomeDog76 4y ago
  Just a personal anectode, but I definitly agree. I've very likely had an average screentime of 8h on the phone per day for the past the past 10 years of my life. With only few timeframes inbetween where it has been less. Only this year it has gotten somewhat better. And I don't think I am the only perspn like that.
aaroninsf 4y ago
Language of "addiction" or not, your assertion is false. There are pragmatic and meaningful differences between different media and communications technologies, and these differences have been remarked upon and considered for decades. It is neither controversial nor remarkable nor indeed anything but common knowledge that algorithmic social media > social media > online media > televised media > radio > print for a related constellation of properties—many of which related, by design, to our relationship and attention to them. Our attention and reward systems in specific have been the explicit and focused target of billions of dollars of R&D and product testing, with the result that the dopamine pellet conditioning paradigm of contemporary social media and related online properties, are literally unlike anything we have encountered as a species before, and no exaggeration to say, that we are utterly defenseless in the face of. Understanding the mechanisms of attention and reward manipulation, and of the consequent utility and increasing application of such factors in service of using these systems as mechanisms of social influence and behavioral conditioning, is no defense. No more than understanding the mechanisms of the appeal to us of fat, salt, and sugar, or for that matter alcohol, nicotine, or opiates, is. There is no defense other than opting out, tuning out, blocking out. And that is not defense against being surveilled. Should we call meticulously tuned conditioned behavior addiction? Depends on the forum. Addiction medicine specialists will no doubt have their own opinion. For the rest of us, yes, it's obviously and undeniably addiction, in the lay sense, and this entirely by design.
amelius 4y ago
I'm sure that experts can diagnose addiction, e.g. by looking at changes in the brain using brain scans etc.
leafstrat 4y ago
Your comment is so naive in underestimating these incredibly powerful devices. You can't even begin to imagine what it's like because you're some old guy but these kids who don't know any difference have absolutely devastated their reward mechanisms. A newspaper is easy to skim in a half hour, you might be bored enough to re-read all the articles if you had nothing else to do. These devices however are constantly spewing out limitless novel information which creates FOMO dependency. Youth have had an infinite supply of 4K resolution stimulation in front of their faces ever since they could communicate. Persuaded by the biggest communications platforms to ever exist, and their algorithms to manipulate emotions and desires. These youth have been primed to be constantly engaged consumers by decades of advertising, technology, psychological studying and implementation. You are seen as "weird" if you don't have a social media that is posted on frequently. People cannot focus on reading a book anymore. People prefer to document an experience rather than "living in it". > Mar 15, 2023 — According to data from DataReportal, the average American spends 6 hours and 59 minutes looking at a screen every day.
ksenzee 4y ago
The term to look up here is "process addiction." You can be addicted to a number of things that are perfectly healthy in moderation, such as work, gambling, or shopping. Internet use falls into the same category.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Just curious, do you happen to have a rubric for determining whether an addiction is legitimate or not? If so, what is it?
Aaronstotle 4y ago
The average American has somewhere around 4 hours a day of phone screen time, that's a serious issue for society at large. Tech companies have done exceptionally well at gamifying social media, which results in more screen time because it gives our brain dopamine. Walk around without your phone, and you'll probably notice that you find yourself checking your pocket to pull-out your phone, at least I do.
com2kid 4y ago
Every major mobile game company has psychologists on hand to design mobile experiences that are more addictive than what would be allowed in American casinos. Machine learning and adaptive gameplay ensures that players are always on the verge of the next dopamine hit, and when the time is right, a pay to win screen is shoved in their face. People spend hundreds of dollars on mobile experiences that they actively do not enjoy, it is behavioral manipulation of the worst sort. We need more regulation. For starters, gacha game mechanics should be banned. After that, adaptive algorithms should be looked into. It is really easy for a ML algorithm to find someone who is depressed and start feeding them more and more depressing content, ensuring engagement. Same goes for extremism of any type, or really any extreme ends of the human psychological spectrum, except, and this may be a sad statement on the nature of humanity, of positive emotions, the activation which do not create long term engagement.
- nix0n 4y ago
  > mobile experiences that are more addictive than what would be allowed in American casinos Does the Nevada Gaming Commission have a specific standard here, which could be copied by other government bodies?
fwipsy 4y ago
I grew up with compulsively playing online shooters. I still can't play them in moderation. I always end up playing to the point where it impacts my work, my social life, and my mood over the long term. Most of my friends acknowledge that they've experienced similar effects to a greater or lesser extant. This is absolutely a problem and if you haven't experienced it yourself, you are lucky.

Retric 4y ago

People do get successful treatment for this in the US. Like most additions it’s a question of actual harm not the public’s acceptance. Thus millions of regular drinkers aren’t all alcoholics but there are also plenty of alcoholics. When someone with a reasonable income is losing their house after maxing their credit cards because they can’t stop buying loot boxes, it’s a really obvious problem.

jack-bodine 4y ago

I have to disagree with you. I know people who genuinely spend 10+ hours a day on the net, completely wasting their time. These aren't people who are browsing HN for short breaks while working. These are the people who live in their parents basements or dorm rooms playing league of legends, watching twitch or browsing reddit while ignoring classes, education and/or serious work. Newspapers and radio didn't result in people spending 40+ hours a week following the news. There probably are some people addicted to TV, but it's such a minority that we don't consider it an issue.

SomeDog76 4y ago
Just a personal anectode, but I definitly agree. I've very likely had an average screentime of 8h on the phone per day for the past the past 10 years of my life. With only few timeframes inbetween where it has been less. Only this year it has gotten somewhat better. And I don't think I am the only perspn like that.

aaroninsf 4y ago

Language of "addiction" or not, your assertion is false. There are pragmatic and meaningful differences between different media and communications technologies, and these differences have been remarked upon and considered for decades. It is neither controversial nor remarkable nor indeed anything but common knowledge that algorithmic social media > social media > online media > televised media > radio > print for a related constellation of properties—many of which related, by design, to our relationship and attention to them. Our attention and reward systems in specific have been the explicit and focused target of billions of dollars of R&D and product testing, with the result that the dopamine pellet conditioning paradigm of contemporary social media and related online properties, are literally unlike anything we have encountered as a species before, and no exaggeration to say, that we are utterly defenseless in the face of. Understanding the mechanisms of attention and reward manipulation, and of the consequent utility and increasing application of such factors in service of using these systems as mechanisms of social influence and behavioral conditioning, is no defense. No more than understanding the mechanisms of the appeal to us of fat, salt, and sugar, or for that matter alcohol, nicotine, or opiates, is. There is no defense other than opting out, tuning out, blocking out. And that is not defense against being surveilled. Should we call meticulously tuned conditioned behavior addiction? Depends on the forum. Addiction medicine specialists will no doubt have their own opinion. For the rest of us, yes, it's obviously and undeniably addiction, in the lay sense, and this entirely by design.

amelius 4y ago

I'm sure that experts can diagnose addiction, e.g. by looking at changes in the brain using brain scans etc.

leafstrat 4y ago

Your comment is so naive in underestimating these incredibly powerful devices. You can't even begin to imagine what it's like because you're some old guy but these kids who don't know any difference have absolutely devastated their reward mechanisms. A newspaper is easy to skim in a half hour, you might be bored enough to re-read all the articles if you had nothing else to do. These devices however are constantly spewing out limitless novel information which creates FOMO dependency. Youth have had an infinite supply of 4K resolution stimulation in front of their faces ever since they could communicate. Persuaded by the biggest communications platforms to ever exist, and their algorithms to manipulate emotions and desires. These youth have been primed to be constantly engaged consumers by decades of advertising, technology, psychological studying and implementation. You are seen as "weird" if you don't have a social media that is posted on frequently. People cannot focus on reading a book anymore. People prefer to document an experience rather than "living in it". > Mar 15, 2023 — According to data from DataReportal, the average American spends 6 hours and 59 minutes looking at a screen every day.

ksenzee 4y ago

The term to look up here is "process addiction." You can be addicted to a number of things that are perfectly healthy in moderation, such as work, gambling, or shopping. Internet use falls into the same category.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Just curious, do you happen to have a rubric for determining whether an addiction is legitimate or not? If so, what is it?

Aaronstotle 4y ago

The average American has somewhere around 4 hours a day of phone screen time, that's a serious issue for society at large. Tech companies have done exceptionally well at gamifying social media, which results in more screen time because it gives our brain dopamine. Walk around without your phone, and you'll probably notice that you find yourself checking your pocket to pull-out your phone, at least I do.

com2kid 4y ago

Every major mobile game company has psychologists on hand to design mobile experiences that are more addictive than what would be allowed in American casinos. Machine learning and adaptive gameplay ensures that players are always on the verge of the next dopamine hit, and when the time is right, a pay to win screen is shoved in their face. People spend hundreds of dollars on mobile experiences that they actively do not enjoy, it is behavioral manipulation of the worst sort. We need more regulation. For starters, gacha game mechanics should be banned. After that, adaptive algorithms should be looked into. It is really easy for a ML algorithm to find someone who is depressed and start feeding them more and more depressing content, ensuring engagement. Same goes for extremism of any type, or really any extreme ends of the human psychological spectrum, except, and this may be a sad statement on the nature of humanity, of positive emotions, the activation which do not create long term engagement.

nix0n 4y ago
> mobile experiences that are more addictive than what would be allowed in American casinos Does the Nevada Gaming Commission have a specific standard here, which could be copied by other government bodies?

fwipsy 4y ago

I grew up with compulsively playing online shooters. I still can't play them in moderation. I always end up playing to the point where it impacts my work, my social life, and my mood over the long term. Most of my friends acknowledge that they've experienced similar effects to a greater or lesser extant. This is absolutely a problem and if you haven't experienced it yourself, you are lucky.