This is not just pseudo-science. It’s literally a false statement. Maybe it’s a metaphor but science is not a metaphor. Metaphor’s are generally a bad foundation for actions based on reality.
It’s ok if people want to compare “social media” to a drug, but there’s any meaningful evidence for those claims either so that’s pseudo-science too. Notice how all the arguments against “social media” here are based on feelings, stories, etc. while there’s zero scientific evidence.
Both electronic media (social media, apps) and cigarettes act as quick-hit, artificial sources of dopamine, the brain’s “feel-good” neurotransmitter, which can lead to addiction. Cigarettes/vapes release dopamine through nicotine, while digital media does so through notifications and content, both hijacking the brain’s reward system to create compulsive, repetitive behaviors.
This is not just pseudo-science. It’s literally a false statement. Maybe it’s a metaphor but science is not a metaphor. Metaphor’s are generally a bad foundation for actions based on reality.
It’s ok if people want to compare “social media” to a drug, but there’s any meaningful evidence for those claims either so that’s pseudo-science too. Notice how all the arguments against “social media” here are based on feelings, stories, etc. while there’s zero scientific evidence.
This was a quote from internal memos you dolt.
That they thought this way, and treated it this way, and leaned into it, is the problem.
do you like it when big tech bros call you a good boy
Both electronic media (social media, apps) and cigarettes act as quick-hit, artificial sources of dopamine, the brain’s “feel-good” neurotransmitter, which can lead to addiction. Cigarettes/vapes release dopamine through nicotine, while digital media does so through notifications and content, both hijacking the brain’s reward system to create compulsive, repetitive behaviors.