this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
815 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
81653 readers
4392 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The title is accurate.
He was asked if it was an addiction, and he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it.
He's right. Clinical addiction has nothing to do with how much you do something, it has to do with how much it causes problems in your life. I know everyone on Lemmy is tripping over their own hard ons to kill corporations, but there are people using lemmy 16 hours a day and if laws are passed to fight Internet addiction, they will not specifically target corporations. We all go down together. Just ask the creator of Urban Dead.
*hards on
So someone doing Heroin everday is not addicted if it doesn't cause any problems in life? Clinical Addiction absolutely does have to do with how much you do something (and other factors of course).
That's a physical addiction. Drug addiction is a problem physicians handle. Psychologists handle addiction to video games, gambling, sex, the Internet, etc and that's how they define addiction.
That is simply not correct. It is true that addiction to substances ends in physical dependency. But at its core all addiction is psychological. A heroin addict doesn't relapse after two years of being sober because he's still physically addicted to it. In most cases it's about missing the capacity for emotional regulation. And people addicted to substances don't get treated by physicians, at least where I'm from.
It is correct. If you do heroin everyday, you will have physical problems. If you stop playing Team Fortress 2 and it causes you to start shaking, vomiting, and shitting your pants, then that's comparable to heroin. But you won't do that so they're not the same types of addiction. That's why the medical community defines addiction by how something affects your life and not by some arbitrary number of times you do it.
There are more than one criteria by which addiction gets defined. One of these absolutely is how often you do something. How it affects you is not the only criteria by which the medical community defines an addiction, albeit one of them.
Heroin Addiction is different to Team Fortress addiction in the same way it is different to Cannabis addiction, they are all unique in how they affect you. The physical and psychological effects of cannabis addiction are going to be different to the ones of heroin and internet addiction.
If they were only defined by how they affect you, like you argue, then every addiction would be a unique type of addiction, which is not how we define them
Again at the core all addiction is psychogical. We don't differenciate between them on basis of physical effects.
So how many hours of TF2 can you play a day before doctors will diagnose you with an addiction? Four, eight, sixteen?
I'm sorry but did you even read my comment? As in the part where I explain there are multiple criterias that define an addiction?
But to take the numbers mentioned in the Post, yes, 16 hours of instagram use are an extremely strong indication of an addiction. If more criteria are fulfilled then it will definetely be diagnosed as an addiction.
Yes I read your comment. So if a man is compelled to murder two hobos a month and can't break the habit, that would not be a strong indication of an addiction?
I mean I know you asked this as a kind of gotcha, but yes psychologists have long argued that seriel killing can be classified as a behavioral addiction. Ted Bundy himself said he felt addicted to killing.
It's not a gotcha. It's more of the Socratic method.
Lol ok. I guess that means you don't have actual arguments or are just trying to be a troll.
Either way, have a good one.
I’m not trolling. I’m trying to get you to think about what you’re saying. I’m hoping if you do, you’ll realize that doctors have to base their diagnosis on “I want to stop but I can’t” and that’s all. Unless it’s something like drinking or drugs that can kill you or harm others, they can’t help some one who says they don’t have a problem.
Well if you're honestly not trolling...
I don't have to think about what I'm saying because I know that this:
"doctors have to base their diagnosis on “I want to stop but I can’t” and that’s all."
is not true.
Do you seriously believe psychiatrists only have this one determining factor to decide if someone is addicted to something?
The ICD-11, which is what is relevant where I'm from, states Gaming Addiction as a behavioral addiction for which one diagnostic criteria is preoccupation which is determined by how often you play games.
To be fair the DSM-5(American Psychiatric Association) lists gaming addiction in it's 'more research needed' section and hasn't yet determined diagnostic criteria for gaming addiction specifically. But it does have the behavioral addiction of gambling, in which preoccupation is also one of these criteria.
I don't know what else to tell you other than that the information you have or where it comes from is simply not true, I'm sorry.
That's interesting. How many times does the DSM-5 say you can gamble before you have an addiction?
Interesting. How many times do I have to explain the concept of needing multiple criteria in order to diagnose addiction for you to understand it?
I was seriously asking. Judging by your reaction though, I assume it doesn't give a number. Probably because it doesn't really factor into the diagnosis at all. The core of the diagnosis will be based on how much it affects your health and happiness.
Because you seem to lack the understanding that no one criteria is enough to diagnose addiction. And yes the preoccupation and duration of use are listed as criteria in both ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Just because there is no set number doesn't mean they do not factor in to diagnosis. And again how it affects your health and life in generell are obviously also criteria by which addiction gets diagnosed. But saying duration and amount of use are not factors is not true.
What you don't understand is that addiction is actually a symptom of another illness and doctors would like to get rid of the concept of addiction, but they can't because it'd collapse a billion dollar industry, turn the DEA and the rest of the government against them, and they'd never hear the end of it from the lay people. "Preoccupation and duration of use" are fuzzy weasel words without any clear definition tacked on to this criteria simply to appease us wall-eyed villagers.
Which doctors are trying to get rid of the "concept" of addiction? What Illness is addiction a "symptom" of? What billion Dollar Industry are you talking about exaclty? If Addiction is a symptom and not an illness why did you spend this whole thread arguing about its criteria? Symptoms aren't diagnosed.
The only one being fuzzy and vague is you
Most of them, OCD, the rehab and drug enforcement industry, I was trying to get you to ponder the concept of addiction. Saying what I said so bluntly is like telling a Christian that Jesus died 2000 years ago and he ain't coming back. I couldn't just dump that on you.
Name one doctors society that does. Because I seriously doubt most, if any doctors say that.
Please show me the evidence for that
I will ignore the rest of the rubbish you wrote
Talking Shit, as I suspected.
I guess we could chalk it up to bad journalism because the example was purely anecdotal. It‘s frustrating for sure.
see
Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they're a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they'll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.
Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you're not a qualified physician. It's perfectly fair to point out you're not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.
No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.
Pam Bondi, is that you?
That still sounds misleading. He was not speaking for 16 hours of use which is what the headline suggests. As other has stated, I hope those companies crumble but I think honesty is important, not sensationalization.
I fear for the future of reading comprehension. Before the portion Analog quotes, the article gives people multiple paragraphs of context to understand addiction as what is being talked about. I don't expect the word to be wedged into every sentence about the same topic. Meta's Adam Mosseri was clearly doing everything in his playbook to not use the word "addiction" in a sentence.
And Adam Mosseri knew better. We know he's been confronted with evidence of addiction but doesn't want to listen.
But I do find it much more concerning that Analog appointed himself judge of bad articles, then either accidentally or intentionally omitted the preceding paragraphs that I had to quote for him.
I fear for it currently if you think it's okay to make up things people said and put it in a headline.