> Yes, it compels.... Just like heroin compels you to get more heroin.
This is an incredibly misleading comparison. Addiction is not a monolith, and there are degrees of addiction. If you cold turkey quit a serious heroin addiction, there's a serious chance you will die. That is absolutely never the case with social media addiction.
There are always times when we act against our own best interest because our body seems to override our brain - I had ice cream last night that I knew was bad for me. That doesn't mean we're compelled, and it isn't sufficient to call something addiction.
What you're doing here is the equivalent of invoking Nazis in an argument on the internet - going straight to "ITS LIKE HEROIN" for anything that be somewhat addictive is incredibly reductive and degrades the quality of what could otherwise be a useful conversation.
> Addiction is not a monolith, and there are degrees of addiction
There are also degrees of compulsion. The law compels me to adhere to a speed limit; that doesn't mean my reptilian brain flips out if I go 66.
Within the context of discussing compulsive social media use described as addictive, arguing ad absurdum with reference to heroin isn't as simple as calling everything distasteful Nazi.
Note that I didn't compare social media to heroin, I've just made a simile of how something can be addictive just like heroin. I didn't say it was similarly addictive, and I didn't even compare their addictiveness, the simile was used to illustrate the point on a non-controversial example (which everyone knows is very addictive)
And yes, you are entirely right - sugar and other things in that ice cream create an addiction - this is why you had ice cream yesterday even though you knew you shouldn't have had it!
I think you're missing the point of the comment you're replying to, and of the story as a whole.
Yes, human beings have agency and are ultimately responsible and accountable for their decisions.
Human beings, like all living organisms, are complex systems. Social media, marketers and advertisers, among others, regularly manipulate and abuse such systems.
So, yes, while it is true that addiction is a spectrum, that spectrum applies to social media as much as it does with other addictions like sugar or amphetamines.
What your argument does is absolve those attempting to abuse such organic, complex systems for their own gain, regardless of the harm it promotes or directly causes.
This is an incredibly misleading comparison. Addiction is not a monolith, and there are degrees of addiction. If you cold turkey quit a serious heroin addiction, there's a serious chance you will die. That is absolutely never the case with social media addiction.
There are always times when we act against our own best interest because our body seems to override our brain - I had ice cream last night that I knew was bad for me. That doesn't mean we're compelled, and it isn't sufficient to call something addiction.
What you're doing here is the equivalent of invoking Nazis in an argument on the internet - going straight to "ITS LIKE HEROIN" for anything that be somewhat addictive is incredibly reductive and degrades the quality of what could otherwise be a useful conversation.