[superkuh]

Another case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context. It's a meme that's become more dangerous than the problem it imagines. It's not in the DSM 5 or ICD10 and not because they haven't addressed it in committee. They have, as recently as 2020 and found no support for it. And if you say, "gambling" well, yes, that's "gambling disorder" not "gambling addiction" and yes, words matter. Especially in legislation.

>“We’ve checked to make sure, we believe it’s constitutional.”

It may be constitutional but it certainly isn't scientific. It's closer to the for-profit use of medical ideas in "anti-gay" "de-patterning" camps and the like. Except backed by people with firearms and a tendency to use them without consequence.

[surge]

You can get addicted to anything that gives you little dopamine hits and stimulating reward centers the same way gambling, etc does. Dark patterns are well documented. Medical science and multiple studies involving brain scans during social media use and lighting up those areas of the brain back this up. The DSM hasn't been redefined but there's recognition of it as a problem and Internet/Gaming (digital media) addictions being added to the DSM is being discussed and there's no argument these platforms are designed by psychologists to use our own brain chemistry against us and create these addictive behaviors. How this is done is well documented and its exactly what the law lays out in it's defining of what constitutes an addictive feed.

Source: Just search HN, there's been so many posts related to this.

[umanwizard]

There is no requirement for laws to use words with the same meaning as they’re used in one specific niche publication. “Addictive” is a normal English word; it doesn’t exclusively belong to psychiatry.

[readthenotes1]

Addiction was a meaningful word long before the DSM

[umanwizard]

Correct, which is why the DSM doesn’t get to define what it means for all English-speakers.

[nxicvyvy]

They're not? They're Defining what it means in a medical setting so we can all have a standard set of evaluating principles to work and diagnose from in order to ensure a standard level of care is achieved across all those under their care.

I don't agree with DSM decisions but I don't have to in order to see this basic nuance about their purpose.

[umanwizard]

Sure, but this law is not a “medical setting”.

[superkuh]

Exactly. As you say, the use of the word "addiction" in this context has nothing to do with scientific or medical reality. It's just an ignorant meme of misclassification; like people saying "the internet isn't working" just because their monitor is unplugged. Imagine legislation to "protect the internet" and require by law that all monitors remain plugged in at all times. That is how stupid this reads. The internet working may just mean "monitor displays browser" in common usage, but it doesn't actually mean that and making law based on popular usage is very, very bad.

[ulbu]

then tell me, why do you need scientific approval before consumption of novel substances, while such other forms of consumption (that access the brain's networks through other modalities than ingestion) are by default "ok"? or are behavioural interventions must be considered as strictly less effective and not require any approval, unless used in a medical setting? and that brings to another question - if it's only the medical setting that decides whether a substance should be considered for approval for consumption (although there's also zero proof that the applications in question thave no psychoactive effects - its rests entirely on your personal feelings), are all other settings simply out of bounds for legal (and, most importantly, moral) considerations? And the way you objectivize such items like "intrinsic value" (completely individual, i.e., case-by-case domain, obviously involved in choice of substance of addiction in all cases of addiction), for me, renders your arguments completely awry. And comparison with conversion therapy is just plain edgy and intentful misrepresentation for the sake of ackchyually.

In my view, this is a perfect case for "there's legitimate doubts about the safety of this technology, so let's ban this until it's completely proven to be safe to consume".

[czl]

> Another case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context.

Say the language is fixed up replacing addiction with disorder, ... Any other objections?

[superkuh]

That would be a great first step.

My other big objection is that this bill as written applies to all people hosting websites instead of being restricted to just incorporated persons like corporations and institutions like the EU's Digital Markets Act.

If it were modified to only apply to incorporated entities then it'd be a solid bill doing net good without any significant violation of individual rights. But as is it applies to all human people that run websites and that makes it a net negative because of the violation of the rights of normal human people.

[zug_zug]

Eh, this feels like a bad-faith argument. I think most of us on this site first-hand feel that obsession to update a feed that seems to control us more than we control it.

I don't need the DSM's permission to notice that.

Whether the ban will work out, open question. But pretending there's no addiction here doesn't pass the smell test.

[superkuh]

Even if it may feel universal that is likely not reflecting the actual distribution of the perception. (ref: Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-925821.pdf)

Additionally, feelings are fine for personal behavior but legislation requires a higher level of evidence. I really do believe what I am saying: addiction is an inappropriate concept to apply here since incentive salience is not being directly hijacked. The types of legislative responses to social problems of addiction (like to cocaine) are not appropriate or justified in this context.

To be clearer: enjoyable things with intrinsic value are being targeted in this context and those things are enjoyed. While addiction involves uncontrollable reptition of things without intrinsic value which become wanted due to the system for wanting being activated directly. Stimuli on screens do not do this. Drugs do. That's why it's gambling disorder and drug addiction. That extra layer of abstraction through the senses makes all the different.

[zug_zug]

> Additionally, feelings are fine for personal behavior but legislation requires a higher level of evidence.

This I can agree with -- but I think it would trivial to get that evidence by asking 10,000 teens if they agree with the following statement "Some of my social media apps feel addictive -- they don't bring my enjoyment but I can't seem to stop using them."

I'd bet about half of teens agree with that.

[megaman821]

I have never felt any compulsion to update a feed. I would like some actual numbers of people that have a debilitating relationship with social media before we pass a bunch of laws restricting it.

[owisd]

Lots of people have never experienced depression but don't feel the need to claim that means it's not real.

[megaman821]

I didn't make any sort of claim like that. The parent said most people have social media compulsion, and I doubt those claims. If you are going to ban something from an entire population of people, why should they not study the actual prevalence of harm.