So, buried within this extended mostly-non-answer, it seems your definition of an addiction is something that drives someone to steal copper pipes.

▲

pembrook 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Litigating the semantics of a word doesn't get us anywhere closer to defining the limits of personal responsibility.

You'd like the goalposts to sit closer so its easier to offload responsibility onto abstract external entities.

I'm arguing this doesn't change who has to be the one to close the app, shut off the TV, turn off the video game, close the bag of candy and take risks in the real world.

▲

tardedmeme 5 hours ago | parent [-]

And I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make, except that you don't think social media is addictive because people don't steal copper pipes to get more of it.

	▲	recursive-call 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I believe the argument is that for something to be addictive, the user has to feel compelled to keep using it that they would take some outsized/extreme risk/action in order to keep using it. It doesn’t have to literally be about stealing copper pipes, just, any action that an ordinary person wouldn’t do, justified because it lets them keep using. e.g drug addicts will steal, even from their own families, or lose their homes because they spent the rent money on drugs. So then the question becomes: if you had to pay to use social media, are there people who are so addicted to it that they would steal, or choose social media time over their bills? If you can actually imagine someone being so addicted to it that they would do this, then you can say social media is addictive.