This is obviously a serious problem, but I hate the use of the word "compels" in the title. Social media does not compel people to share things. It encourages it by design, absolutely, but nobody is forced to share things. We should take it seriously, but not to the point where we eliminate any concept of human autonomy in the use of these platforms.
Yes, it compels.... Just like heroin compels you to get more heroin. You can argue that human autonomy also has a role in it, but someone's thinking is not entirely autonomous, especially when addicted to something.
Social media is addictive, and to an extent forces you to share things about yourself (there are social consequences for not doing so. I personally don't give a fuck but not everyone chooses that decision)
Heroin isn't addictive because other addicts are convincing you to take it.
We are a social animal in the sense that it's part of normal healthy functioning, and that isolation is considered a mode of torture. Social media is a means to connect people that is perfectly manageable if you're an intact person in the same sense that the telephone is a convenient eay to stay in touch. There is no safe dose of heroin to avoid addiction in a healthy person.
This thread is really not about heroin, though. Take food as an example. A person can be addicted to food (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_addiction) but eating isn't otherwise necessarily unhealthy. A person may be "compelled" to take a certain action for many reasons; I fail to see how the use of that word in this title is wrong.
The sine qua non of addiction is withdrawal symptoms, not compulsion. Social media isn't necessary if you have a productive social life replacement. There is no analog substitute for heroin.
> The sine qua non of addiction is withdrawal symptoms, not compulsion.
This statement refutes the idea that social media or food can possibly be addictive, yet there's this body of research for both which asserts they can be. At best, this is splitting hairs over the definition of addiction. Assuming that Something can be addictive, a person might be "compelled" to act by their addiction to Something.
> Yes, it compels.... Just like heroin compels you to get more heroin.
This is an incredibly misleading comparison. Addiction is not a monolith, and there are degrees of addiction. If you cold turkey quit a serious heroin addiction, there's a serious chance you will die. That is absolutely never the case with social media addiction.
There are always times when we act against our own best interest because our body seems to override our brain - I had ice cream last night that I knew was bad for me. That doesn't mean we're compelled, and it isn't sufficient to call something addiction.
What you're doing here is the equivalent of invoking Nazis in an argument on the internet - going straight to "ITS LIKE HEROIN" for anything that be somewhat addictive is incredibly reductive and degrades the quality of what could otherwise be a useful conversation.
> Addiction is not a monolith, and there are degrees of addiction
There are also degrees of compulsion. The law compels me to adhere to a speed limit; that doesn't mean my reptilian brain flips out if I go 66.
Within the context of discussing compulsive social media use described as addictive, arguing ad absurdum with reference to heroin isn't as simple as calling everything distasteful Nazi.
Note that I didn't compare social media to heroin, I've just made a simile of how something can be addictive just like heroin. I didn't say it was similarly addictive, and I didn't even compare their addictiveness, the simile was used to illustrate the point on a non-controversial example (which everyone knows is very addictive)
And yes, you are entirely right - sugar and other things in that ice cream create an addiction - this is why you had ice cream yesterday even though you knew you shouldn't have had it!
I think you're missing the point of the comment you're replying to, and of the story as a whole.
Yes, human beings have agency and are ultimately responsible and accountable for their decisions.
Human beings, like all living organisms, are complex systems. Social media, marketers and advertisers, among others, regularly manipulate and abuse such systems.
So, yes, while it is true that addiction is a spectrum, that spectrum applies to social media as much as it does with other addictions like sugar or amphetamines.
What your argument does is absolve those attempting to abuse such organic, complex systems for their own gain, regardless of the harm it promotes or directly causes.
Compel is an apt word to use in this situation. Definition is: "force or oblige (someone) to do something" or "bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure" [Oxford Dictionary].
Social media can make people feel _obliged_ by social pressure to engage in the platform (via sharing or posting updates about their life to family members and/or friends).
Addiction can also do the same thing, while others may be bored and scroll incessantly (they feel the need to stave off boredom).
There is a myriad of reasons. I felt compelled to respond to your insistence that 'compel' was an incorrect word.
