For a different perspective on this - You Are Not Addicted To Technology (https://www.jasonfeifer.com/episode/you-are-not-addicted-to-...). It’s a podcast with a transcript.

Summary

- there is a tendency to overuse medicalised terms. Like “I’m a bit OCD” or “I have PTSD” even when it’s clearly a gross exaggeration at best.

- Every generation had their own moral panics about addictions of the day. Examples given are “women are addicted to hobbies like bird watching”, radio addiction from the 1920s, telephone addiction from the 70s, television addiction from the 80s, Tetris addiction from the 90s. A lot of this is pathologising normal behaviour

- the major change came in 2013 with the publication of the fifth edition of DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). For the first time gambling addiction was grouped with substance addiction. This led to an explosion of research to find other addictive behaviours. Suddenly phones were addictive, internet was addictive and so on.

- the definition of addiction they propose is “In the case of addiction, where you have a particular substance or behavior that you are obsessed with, you cannot move away from, it preoccupies all your thoughts to the point that it is destroying your occupational or social life. That's a particularly strong set of behaviors, and a particularly unique outcome.”

- phone use has increased over time, but the role of phones has changed as well. They are devices used to keep in touch with friends and family. No one is going to argue that those are negative things, or that they are destroying our occupational or social lives

- the research into technology addiction was flawed. Many studies used the methodology of previous alcohol addiction studies. So for example a person who couldn’t answer how many times they had drank in the last week - that would be an indication that they’re an alcoholic. But the same thing was used on social media addiction. If you answered “not sure” to “how many times did you check HN in the last week”, you’d be classified as an addict.

- the methodology was so flawed that when applied to people’s “addiction” to friends it came back with the same result - people are hopelessly addicted to friends. They prioritise friends over their job, they lose track of time spent with friends, they can’t say how long they spent with friends in the last month, they look forward to their next “hit” of friends as soon as they’re done with one meet-up.

- gaming might addictive on it’s own, but it could be a coping strategy by people with other underlying mental health issues. Get help for those and the gaming “addiction” subsides. just like phones, gaming can fulfill basic needs we have, like social affiliation and competition for mastery.

- “ the price of living in a world with so many good things in it, is that sometimes we have to learn these new skills, these new behaviors to moderate our use. One surefire way to not do anything, is to believe you are powerless. That's what learned helplessness is all about. By medicalizing an otherwise normal behavior and telling everybody that we're all addicted, well, then what can we do about it? Nothing. Because when you have an addiction, you have a pusher, you have a dealer, you have a substance that controls you, so to speak. And so how can you possibly do something about that? You can't. And this is why you see article saying technology is hijacking your brain and why they love using the word addiction, because addiction denotes a lack of agency.”

And that’s the crux of this entire discussion. Every time someone is telling you that you’re powerless to resist Facebook or Netflix or Xbox or HN, you internalise the message and become less likely to take steps to moderate your use.

You know who can help? Thought leaders who would be willing to give a talk for modest speaking fees. Politicians who will outlaw compelling products if you’d vote for them. Detox centres who will help you if you pay them.