[superkuh]

This has about as much basis in science as gay conversion therapies. Or people saying they're OCD because of a habit. There is absolutely no science published in science journals (not some person's book or "treatment program") supporting the idea of "social media" addiction. Addiction has a meaning and when it is repeatedly mis-used and conflated with other things you end up with well meaning social institutions, like the Ontario school board, supporting very unscientific and damaging positions just because of a moral panic.

[CharlesW]

> There is absolutely no science published in science journals (not some person's book or "treatment program") supporting the idea of "social media" addiction.

If/when this is recognized in the DSM and ICD, it likely won't use the word "addiction". But in colloquial use, "addiction" isn't wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addicted

Even the use of the word in scientific contexts isn't as cut-and-dried as you might think. Non-substance addictive behaviors in the context of DSM-5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858502/

[superkuh]

And since you looked it up in the DSM-V you'll already know that the only behavioral problem of that type accepted by it or the ICD is "gambling disorder" (not an addiction and only grandfathered in as a disorder).

Mis-using terms in legal contexts like these should get the cases thrown out at the very least. But it is also dangerous for our society to continue to call literally everything an addiction in informal contexts. Our legislators and elected officials do not know the difference. And what they do in response is far more dangerous and damaging then the imagined problems they think they will stop.

[CharlesW]

> But it is also dangerous for our society to continue to call literally everything an addiction in informal contexts.

As someone who dies inside when people use "on premise" instead of "on premises", I understand your battle, my friend. Thank you for the reminder.