What if Addiction Isn't the Problem?

"Part of the problem with pinning the harm of Instagram on addiction is that addiction has no clear definition, which makes it easier for Meta to argue its way out of culpability. In fact, during the Meta trial, Instagram's chief executive officer testified that the app is not "clinically" addictive. Given that clinical addiction is yet one definition among many, that incorporates all the substances and all the processes we have come to describe as addictive from methamphetamines to sports betting, he is probably correct."

"This assumption has gotten us nowhere. Nowhere in helping our kids. Nowhere toward regulating the corporations who damage us. The certainty that addiction always harms has not created a safer world for the US or other nations, nor brought us any closer to preventing overdose deaths."

"But an argument about Instagram's addictiveness - yes or no - misses the larger issue of where harm actually lies. Re-examining our fundamental assumptions about addiction could help us out of the quandary that defines this lawsuit as well as our overall understanding of addiction."

The lawsuit against Meta regarding Instagram's addictive design assumes addiction is inherently harmful, yet this assumption has failed to protect children or regulate corporations effectively. The core problem lies in addiction's undefined nature, allowing Meta to argue the app is not clinically addictive while evading accountability. Focusing on whether Instagram causes addiction misses the actual harm: exploitative design targeting children. A new framework reconceptualizes addiction not as inherently damaging but as a common, sometimes positive human state. This perspective, informed by anthropological research, could shift regulatory focus from debating addiction's existence to addressing genuine harms and preventing children's exploitation through manipulative corporate practices.

Read at Psychology Today