It's not about the content matter itself, it's about the activity: staring silently and passively at a screen for many hours every day, and the fundamental difference that Facebook makes people feel they are carrying on relationships, when actually the online relationship takes over the real-life relationship. You were watching your friends and relatives (their personal lives or otherwise) on TV.

tv is exactly in the same league as Facebook. Video games is pretty close too. Neither one are recognized as addictions.

What? Does TV track what you're doing when you're not watching and change the ads when you return?

You're being silly.

It did something worse: it severed everyone the same ads and propaganda. The phrase "Television rules the Nation" didn't just occur to Daft Punk because it sounded cool.

It was a broadcasting-only service with a high cost of entry. You need big money to put your thoughts on TV. As someone from a country where the big media conglomerates and the government are helplessly colluded, social media comes as a very welcome break and counter-force.

Marketing has had focus groups, and user use/studies for years.

They have always had ways of knowing exactly what their content does without having to track millions of clicks.

We have had sampling methods that makes the need to examine census pointless, it is just cool that today computing can handle the whole data set and scary that we are.

Still, today, some of the best ways to truly examine massive swaths of data is deducing to what is missing. Who turns their phones off from 10pm-2am and turns them back on at 2am? Who wasn't looking at facebook and watching netflix all night while everyone else was?

There's a lot of discussion about video game addiction in fact.

Video game addiction is recognized in DSM-V.

No its not. Internet gaming disorder is not part of the dsm-v, only that it should be studied further.

> Internet Gaming Disorder is a “Condition for Further Study” in the DSM-5 (APA 2013). This means that it is not an "official" disorder in the DSM, but one on which the American Psychiatric Association request additional research. Upon further research, the APA may or may not decide to make the disorder "official" in future editions of the DSM.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhe...

These things don't share many of the symptoms that physical addictions or even gambling are associated with.

Edit: I was wrong - you're right.

Have a look at the actual DSM-V section on it (starts at p795): http://displus.sk/DSM/subory/dsm5.pdf

As for how proposed criteria sets are actually recognized:

Proposed Criteria sets are presented for conditions on which future research is encouraged. The specific items, thresholds, and durations contained in these research criteria sets were set by expert consensus—informed by literature review, data reanalysis, and field trial results, where available—and are intended to provide a common language for researchers and clinicians who are interested in studying these disorders. It is hoped that such research will allow the field to better understand these conditions and will inform decisions about possible placement in forthcoming editions of DSM. The DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups subjected each of these proposed criteria sets to a careful empirical review and invited wide commentary from the field as well as from the general public. The Task Force determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant inclusion of these proposals as official mental disorder diagnoses in Section II. These proposed criteria sets are not intended fo r clinical use; only the criteria sets and disorders in Section II of D S M -5 are officially recognized and can be used for clinical purposes.

It's got approximately the mass reach and appeal that television did. It doesn't have nearly the impact that TV did. I wonder what makes you think that Facebook is in any way the same league as TV. TV transformed society. Facebook just makes it easier for people to argue with each other.

Your gross simplification of the issue is unfortunate. TV has never been able to track you and change its programming to the extent Facebook can.

Who cares? Would TV have been that worse if it did the same thing?

Yes.

How? You spend less time channel surfing trying to find what you're into?

You spend more time watching the TV because the extra information provided tells them exactly how to extract that extra attention.

I think the best example are little kids with no self control watching endless amount of dopamine hitting videos like kinder eggs. People realized little kids loved these simple toy opening videos and the algorithm was more than happy enough to increase engagement by feeding kids these videos.

>You spend more time watching the TV because the extra information provided tells them exactly how to extract that extra attention.

What's wrong with this? Lots of people like television. I like television. My life isn't that great and I'll take the distraction, thanks.

It is extraordinarily disingenuous to employ the "who cares" response against someone who, quite clearly, cares.

Moreover, "who cares" now includes numerous former (and current) Facebook employees, executives, and investors.