3 ms·

You (and others) are a bit confused. The DSM V (5) was published in May 18, 2013 and there have been updates. DSM-5-TR was published in 2022. This was after the

You (and others) are a bit confused. The DSM V (5) was published in May 18, 2013 and there have been updates. DSM-5-TR was published in 2022. This was after the above issue was explicitly looked into by a subpanel and found to be lacking in evidence.

talldayo 3y ago
Unless the subpanel was directly investigating TikTok's user experience, I'm not really sure if their study is relevant here. It would be overly broad to dismiss the EU's qualified claims because another study suggested that screens can't be addictive.
- superkuh 3y ago
  It would not be overly broad. In fact, it's the opposite. The EU Internal Market has no expertise or knowledge regarding psychology and neuroscience. It is operating purely off non-peer reviewed feelings from their expertise in social media and business regulation. This is like, say, taking advice from a FCC official on mental health. A business major talking about biology.
  - carabiner 3y ago
    The dsm justified lobotomies and incarceration for black men who wanted civil rights. I think it's safe to say it's a lagging metric.
  - talldayo 3y ago
    > This is like, say, taking advice from a FCC official on mental health. This is more like if the FCC demanded a company provide a risk-assessment for a blatantly harmful feature, didn't receive it, and took remediating action against the offending business: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/17/byedance-rfi-tiktok-lite/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/17/byedance-rfi-tiktok-lite/
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
The Facebook algorithmic news feed was introduced in Sep 2011 [1]. I recall it not being super addictive/"engagement inducing" in the first couple of years, because they hadn't figured it out yet. And Facebook was ahead of all other social media sites on this back then. I hardly think a 2013 document would have had access to enough data to say anything about the impacts of social media "addiction". 2022 is a different story. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_(Facebook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_(Facebook)

talldayo 3y ago

Unless the subpanel was directly investigating TikTok's user experience, I'm not really sure if their study is relevant here. It would be overly broad to dismiss the EU's qualified claims because another study suggested that screens can't be addictive.

superkuh 3y ago
It would not be overly broad. In fact, it's the opposite. The EU Internal Market has no expertise or knowledge regarding psychology and neuroscience. It is operating purely off non-peer reviewed feelings from their expertise in social media and business regulation. This is like, say, taking advice from a FCC official on mental health. A business major talking about biology.
- carabiner 3y ago
  The dsm justified lobotomies and incarceration for black men who wanted civil rights. I think it's safe to say it's a lagging metric.
- talldayo 3y ago
  > This is like, say, taking advice from a FCC official on mental health. This is more like if the FCC demanded a company provide a risk-assessment for a blatantly harmful feature, didn't receive it, and took remediating action against the offending business: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/17/byedance-rfi-tiktok-lite/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/17/byedance-rfi-tiktok-lite/

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

The Facebook algorithmic news feed was introduced in Sep 2011 [1]. I recall it not being super addictive/"engagement inducing" in the first couple of years, because they hadn't figured it out yet. And Facebook was ahead of all other social media sites on this back then. I hardly think a 2013 document would have had access to enough data to say anything about the impacts of social media "addiction". 2022 is a different story. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_(Facebook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_(Facebook)