[paublyrne]

> Why would anyone want to spend time trawling obscure library database systems only to find the library doesn't stock the right books or that someone has taken it on loan for an unknown period of time ?

You're setting up a bit of strawman, I don't see anyone arguing the internet is inferior to the library, but that library usage (for example) doesn't trigger the dopamine release cycle in the way refreshing a frequently changing webpage does.

[traceroute66]

> You're setting up a bit of strawman, I don't see anyone arguing the internet is inferior to the library

I think you're missing the point a little.

Back in the day, nobody who spent 8 hours a day 5 days a week in the library would be accused of "library addiction".

But suddenly, anyone who spends a long time on the internet just gets tarnished with a brush that says "internet addict" irrespective of what they do on the internet.

I suspect that the majority of people don't spend their time posting conspiracy theories on Twitter. Which is just why lumping everybody into one "the internet" category is more damaging than it is useful.

(Before anyone takes it too seriously, the references to long hours above were purely examples and not meant to be judged or interpreted !)

[skohan]

I think you're the one missing the point. If someone is spending all their time online reading scholarly articles or learning skills nobody is going to accuse them of internet addiction. That does not mean internet addiction is not real.

To make an analogy, lots of people are able to enjoy drinking alcohol without issue, but that doesn't disprove the existence of alcoholism.

[paublyrne]

I believe that there are many in between the two extremes you mention for whom the draw of connection is far from benign, which is why I would not be so dismissive of addiction concerns.