We found more common ground and more things that separate us, too.

I agree with your idea of regulating social media and I’d add that platforms should be mandated to open their walled gardens by implementing open protocols and force them to play nice with other platforms (said the guy on Lemmy.)

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the notion that an addiction only hurts the addict. I’d argue that’s never the case. On the contrary, alcoholism or gambling can drag whole families or more into poverty. On top of the microcosm impact, albeit more of a European problem, I suppose (although I wouldn’t want it any other way), substance-related addictions are a huge cost factor on our social health system, costing the public hand (us, me) huge sums and taking up ever scarcer hospital beds and treatment slots. Here comes my main point: History (especially yours with the prohibition period) proves that outlawing substances doesn’t work, and neither am I for it. But our minds are vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, and advertisement is utilising that fact by e.g., creating associations between drinking or smoking and sexual desirability. This is well known and it works too, or it wouldn’t be the enormous industry it is. Now then, why should we allow the manipulation of our desires for something that is ultimately bad for EVERY part of society except the leeches directly profiteering from it? (I’m not even talking about the fact that children’s minds are even more susceptible to this, but are for the most part just as exposed to the same stimuli our adult ones are. One of the restrictions for wine/beer ads here in my country, by the way: Not on daytime TV. Somewhat sensible at least.)

I wonder why you draw the line at medicine, by the way. What’s the difference there for you?

Edit: Thanks for the respectful discussion, by the way. I appreciate it.

We land on somewhat different sides of the neoliberal fence, I think.

The substances sugar, alcohol, tobacco, sure. Potentially harmful but not malicious. As long as we’re talking about adults I mostly agree (although there are many regulations around them in all parts of the world. Smoking in public places, drinking when operating machinery and so on.) A company trying to manipulate people with ads to consume more of these substances: different story altogether since now there’s at the very least neglect of societal responsibility involved- can and should be regulated. I can’t think of a single reason why ads for alcohol should be allowed, for example. Here in a middle European country advertising spirits or nicotine products is illegal, while ads for beer/wine are legal under certain conditions. Slot machines and similar gambling are illegal while casino games like Roulette and Black Jack are very strictly regulated but legal. What’s the situation in your corner of the world and what’s your take on it?

What to regulate and to which extent is not trivial of course, but especially when it comes to social media we’re so far removed from “too much regulation” that I don’t think it’s worth going into it here. Banning Smartphones is obviously not the answer either way.

Of course, everybody is trying to develop tricks like yours to resist, but I don’t think we should just accept as fact that we need to have those tricks to escape the attention grabbing behemoths with the endless money they throw at this optimisation problem.

It’s not like algorithms designed to maximise engagement regardless of societal cost are a law of nature we can never escape. It’s just unregulated power, which society has worked very hard to limit and align with “the common good” in the past. Free reign for technocrats that display beauty ads to teenage girls after they deleted their selfies, as a single heinous example, is proof that our control mechanism (democracy in the broader sense, I suppose) isn’t working anymore, but that also doesn’t mean we should roll over and accept it.

I’m with you that personal responsibility is of course important. The message of Johann Hari’s book I tried to convey was (paraphrasing again) “Don’t be too hard on yourself when you eventually slip up. It’s a steep uphill battle.”

It’s not a problem that can meaningfully be dealt with on an individual level.

I recommend Johann Hari’s book Stolen Focus. It goes deep into influencing factors of why we are having such a hard time of putting our devices down. The first he lists: giant tech companies are employing the smartest people on earth (i.e., smarter than you or me) to maximize engagement. The cards are heavily stacked against any single one of us trying to break free from these skinner boxes. The threat of social isolation you mock the blog’s author for is of course another ace up Meta’s sleeve. The book among other things tries to relieve the feeling of individual failure at this insurmountable task of constantly fending off the targeted attacks on our attention- I paraphrase: “You didn’t fail, it was a losing battle to begin with.”

If you yourself don’t have this problem, I’m glad for you and I hope it lasts. Many, many people do, and there are ever more tragic news headlines to show for it. We as a society (or is that societies?) need to regulate the tech-oligarchs, and fast. I have some hope left at least for the EU coming around on it.