As much as I dislike TikTok, I dislike this dangerous mischaracterization even more. If you start propagating the meme that screens are like chemically addictive drugs the governments of the world will feel emboldened to use violence force to 'regulate' them. Screens are not drugs. They do not directly manipulate the biochemistry of incentive salience regardless of valence of perceived stimuli. They just provide enjoyable stimuli. It is VASTLY different. Conflating them is playing in to the hands of the authoritarians.

Gambling doesn't directly manipulate biochemistry either. Neither does porn. Both are recognized as addictive. If you think reading Dostoevsky is in the same realm as doom scrolling algorithmically tailored Instagram reels because they're both "enjoyable stimuli," there's not much of a conversation to be had.

This is a thread about government-aligned owners censoring content on a platform the government forced a sale of. The authoritarians already have the thing.

False. Gambling disorder exists, but it is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be accepted today. Porn addiction has no entry in the DSMV or ICD10, it is purely a made up concept advanced by for-profit companies looking to exploit people (and authoritarian governments looking to control). The same kind of groups that used to run camps to "fix" gay people.

If you think a chemical directly manipulating the biochemistry of incentive salience, making you want something regardless of it's valance, is the same as eventually liking something you watch and hear that's actually rewarding, yes, there's not much conversation to be had. Lay interpretations of this field are not very useful.

Fair enough, I don't have any formal credentials in this field. Could you clarify a few things:

My understanding is gambling disorder was promoted in the DSM-5 in 2013. When was it grandfathered?

The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. Are they captured as well?

Where should I look for a non-lay interpretation?

Gambling disorder was introduced in DSM 3 (1980) before much was known about human neurobiology under 'impulse control disorder not elsewhere classified'. Back then they even thought dopamine was a 'pleasure' chemical. And we now know it's about wanting, not liking. You may be mixing it up when it was reclassified as the DSM 4 (not 5!) did a big reorganization.

Kent Berridges' lab review articles are a great place to start to understand addiction, wanting, and liking and how they are different. But mostly importantly, how addiction works so you can see how chemical addictive substances are vastly different. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-art...

Edit: and re: "porn disorder/gaming disorder/behavioral impulse disorders to 'screens' in general" and the behavior of the ICD re: china, see the widely cited Nichole Prause' work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en

I don't follow. DSM-5 (2013) moved gambling into 'Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.' What specifically are you saying happened in DSM-4?

Thanks for sharing. I'll read Berridge.

The distinction you're drawing is mechanistic. I'm not submitting a paper to a journal. Kids are scrolling until 3am, teen mental health is cratering, boomers are getting radicalized by bot farms, and democracy is being sold for pennies on the dollar. If your response is 'technically not addiction,' we're not having the same conversation.

This is untrue. Take it from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t39/ "Impact of the DSM-IV to DSM-5 Changes on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health [Internet]." In 5 they actually moved it to the 'Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders' because it was grandfathered into it's own class and really fit nowhere else in the reorganization. It shouldn't be there either but it was too late.

You've prescribed some outcomes: I am not saying you have not personally observed these things. I am saying they are not due to addiction and that using comparisons to addictive drugs and addiction implies that people have no volition when reading things or watching things on screens instead of, say, watching them in their environment directly. That's a very dangerous claim. If you think that it's okay to claim screens can make you do things and need to be regulated like addictive drugs, we are definitely not having the same conversation. You're advocating that text and video need to be regulated by government use of force and that's really dangerous and wrong.

I agree that the corporations pushing these propaganda machines are a huge problem. But it's not one involving addiction.

The DSM-5 work group chair said the move was based on brain imaging showing gambling activates reward systems like drugs do [1]. That's not grandfathering, that's reclassification based on neuroscience. Your source is a comparison table of criteria, not a rationale for the reclassification.

The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. The field is expanding. But even if it never formally recognizes social media addiction—call it whatever you want.

I'm assuming good faith, though you are putting words in my mouth. I said social media is a cheap, shitty, and extremely addictive drug. I'm happy to rephrase that to 'cheap, shitty, and extremely compulsive in ways that damage health, relationships, attention and has immensely negative effects for society as a whole.' I never once mentioned government regulation, you can reread my comments.

My opinion is that people should view it as lame and self regulate. I do not think it is likely to happen.

[1] https://www.icrg.org/blog/the-evolving-definition-of-patholo...

Uh, every enjoyable experience activates glutamergic activity the bilateral shell of the nucleus accumbens, even looking at a pretty sunset. The problem is when it's not the result of processing attributes intrinsic to an experience but instead mediated chemically.

The argument that, "That brain brains when you $x." is so trivial and useless I usually assume it's done in bad faith. But you seem to be engaging on the level, so why?

I'm sorry, but "playing in to the hands of the authoritarians" is using shite like TikTok, generating revenue for the authoritarian billionaires who are currently destroying the world.

We are not disagreeing. Definitely do not use TikTok for those and many other reasons. But calling an audio visual stimuli an addictive drug is just as wrong and dangerous. That will lead to those same authoritarians controlling screens with use of force justified by the false metaphor.