Language of "addiction" or not, your assertion is false. There are pragmatic and meaningful differences between different media and communications technologies

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.