That assumes quite a bit of freedom that may not exist for many people.

An Uber driver waiting for their next passenger isn’t able to go hang out with friends, but they can play on their phone, or read a book.

Before devices, people were able to find ways to kill time at work just fine. As a human, we're perfectly capable of surviving without the device. I know that seems antithetical to zillenials, but it will be more than okay to look away from the screen for an extended period of time.

Personally, having a driver sit their counting the number of red cars or counting the number of different state license plates is equally purpose serving as doom scrolling. In fact, it's probably much less detrimental to their mental health.

It saddens me a wee bit that people think that the devices much be attended to to this extent.

Users didn’t consider them just fine, as they immediately abandoned them when given the chance.

That doesn't mean it's not harming them. Have addicts made the right choice by indulging their weakness?

New and fun isn't the same as addictive.

We don't consider people watching TV, listing to the radio, or reading books as addicts yet people decried each of them as they became ever more popular for ruining the youth etc. People like stimulation and seem to indulge when it's new, but most people also get used to it relatively quickly.

I think you're trying to move the goal posts. The apps on the new are absolutely without a shadow of doubt trying to make their users addicted. To even suggest they are not addictive is beyond pale, and makes you look like a not serious attempt at the discussion, or worse.

Your second sentence is null after your first.

Pay to win apps aiming for addiction get a tiny number of whales out of millions of people. So yes apps try very hard, but the vast majority of people just don’t get addicted long term just obsessed for a short period.

Compare retention numbers between smoking and clash of clans, a clearly successful pay to win game, and it’s not even close.

We could talk about various other apps, but nobody has actually nailed addiction for the general population just the people highly susceptible to such behaviors.

are you willfully being obtuse to the behaviors of the social apps FB, Tiktok, Twit...er,X and the ilk? Games of course are trying to be addictive to get you to buy more IAP/lootbox/otherHandInPocket concepts.

it's like you think a device is only able to play games which is clearly ludicrous.

I simply used gaming to make it clear attempting to be addictive wasn’t the same as actually being addictive. Social Apps rise and fall in popularity just like everything else.

Meta has billions of users but that’s split across 4 platforms FB, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger. So clearly popularity isn’t the same as addiction otherwise their FB app would be all they need.

Go back a few years and Netflix seem addictive as people binged shows, but I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting they are addictive today.

Q.E.D. New and fun isn't the same as addictive.

The only QED is your circular logic

I accept your concession.

Sure; but it’s probably true for most of us most of the time.

I’m on HN right now instead of playing piano or going for a walk. I think I need the reminder sometimes.

Go for a walk right now!

Yeah but saying "you ought to go outside / relax / rest / spend time with family" and then saying "not everyone can because shit sucks" is missing the point. Shit does suck, for a lot of people, in a lot of ways. Acknowledging that is good, but then saying the alternative for that is people to play on their phones? How about advocating for people to be able to make a wage or living and have time to hang out with friends?