Spending four to six hours a day on your phone is now being discussed in medical circles as a sign of internet addiction disorder (IAD).
That’s right — your habits of doom-scrolling, gaming or watching X-rated videos are officially harmful to your well-being.
According to estimates, every 1 out of 8 people in the UK may have a behavioural addiction, which leads to impairment in daily functioning.
As a result, there’s a high possibility that companies will soon be legally obliged to accommodate ‘internet-addicted’ employees.
If this becomes a reality, what would the universal parameters of the disorder be? Who would be responsible for defining the criteria of the diagnosis?
Internet Addiction and Compulsive Behaviours
Digital natives are turning to technology like AI for performing tasks as simple as making a grocery list.
Technology is no longer a medium of comfort. It has become an enabler of the slow erosion of your free will and agency.
Sleep loss, reduced social activities, an insatiable thirst to stay glued to your device and declined academic or work performance are common symptoms of internet addiction.
As briefly listed, there are many types of problematic internet use, though social media scrolling, gaming, online gambling, information overload and sexual media consumption are the primary ones.
When coping with addiction, vulnerabilities and risk factors induced by biological, psychosocial and cultural influences impact a person’s decision-making skills.
This is further intensified by the deliberate design of attention traps by tech companies. Infinite scroll, continuous notifications, loot boxes in games, and autoplay all exist to preserve user focus.
Despite the negative consequences, many people continue suffering from a loss of control due to the internet.
Role of Regulators, Governments and Scientists
The aetiology of pathological internet use predicts a dreary yet commonly ignored truth. Conversations are popping up, but very slowly.
In 2020, theWorld Health Organisation classified ‘gaming disorder’, which besets a small proportion of the global population, as a formal disease.
Defined as the compulsive prioritisation of video games over other activities, it is bound to be included in public health initiatives and government policies.
Gaming is a part of the broader discussion of digital addiction, IAD, problematic internet use (PIU), and various other labels present in current literature.
Although much debate surrounds terms and their overlapping parameters, China and South Korea have already stepped in and funded treatments, awareness and research.
Public Opinion vs Science
A surging reliance on mobile devices during the COVID-19 pandemic sparked debate among experts and policymakers regarding the classification of ‘addiction’.
The line between engaging and harmful consumption has long remained blurred. Public opinions paved the way well before governments entered the narrative.
User concerns like ‘TikTok has ruined my concentration’ stir conversation. Is scrolling six hours a day less worrisome than two hours of gambling?
But who are we consciously believing — science or cultural consensus?
The gaming community used to complain about loot boxes and randomised rewards being gambling tactics, even before authorities took measures.
Gambling was the first internet addiction listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1980. Today, mechanisms have been developed to tackle it.
For instance, the UK’s online gambling sector is regulated through transparent and legal frameworks. Strict advertising standards and fair consumer usage are promoted, while a UK online casinos list reflects efforts to promote safer, licensed platforms — especially as gambling converges with other digital behaviours.
This raises the question: Who will and can classify internet addiction and its symptoms?
Who Holds the Authority?
Various stakeholders exist in the mainframe or are benefiting from it.
Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, consisting of researchers from the ‘Facebook class’, was an initiative in the early 2000s aimed at ‘capturing attention’.
Tech companies understood successful metrics as the number of involved users. Their efforts were gainful with an influx of indulged consumers.
Whether to save reputation or stemming from genuine concern, companies are now curbing user behaviours.
Tools and blockers like Apple’s Screen Time, parental controls for kids and Google’s ‘Digital Wellbeing’ system are coded into contemporary device models.
By contrast, regulatory actors and governments often lag in inclusion.
There is much contention over the definition of ‘internet addiction’ among international scientific bodies, whether it is a separate disorder or an overlapping symptom of depression and anxiety.
Despite tons of national research, the American Psychological Association has yet to identify internet addiction as an illness in its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
While public outcry is loud with trends like ‘digital detoxes’ and the ‘clean girl aesthetic’, tech companies continue to invest in attention traps backed by scientific validation.
Meaning of Engagement in the Attention Economy
It is not only scientists who are unable to frame the diagnostic criteria for internet addiction collectively.
A split between the younger and older crowds causes problems. Gen-Z and millennials view the use of internet as productive, whereas older adults think it is self-destructive.
Clearly, reports are influenced by personal attitudes regarding device usage.
But ultimately, we must also ask: Is the burden to define on users or the tech giants employing behaviour analysts to convert engagement into a business model?
A Societal Collaboration
Internet is a widespread global occurrence reaching every remote corner.
Regulating bodies, the scientific community, corporations, and most importantly the governments are responsible for helping populations and consumers beat addiction.
Promoting education and awareness is the first action towards eradicating the struggle.
National helplines should be advertised.
Research institutes, such as the National Centre for Gaming Disorders, need to be funded.
Transparency and moving beyond surface-level actions are required from most tech companies.
Regardless of an individual’s consistency, efforts will invariably remain inadequate. Inclusive, collective and universally coordinated actions are urgently needed.