The design of social media causes addiction and ansxiety (FOMO)

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "The design of social media causes addiction and ansxiety (FOMO)". Your opponent's style: Scientific, factual, professional, smart, strategic

No matter if we think that social media usage is up to us it’s undeniable that its causes addiction, people use social media for many hours a day while acknowledging that it’s bad but can’t stop, studies have shown that the use of social media is correlated to a sense of withdrawal when not using, a clear indicator of addiction, not just that but the amount of cases of depression. Algorithms are made to give a sense of reward causing a dopamine release which is exactly what drugs do for instance. Not to mention saying “it’s up to the user” is highly insensitive bc the same thing goes for drugs and alcohol and gambling, of course it would be easy for a person to just stop using but the chemicals in the drugs, the reward system of games and the algorithm of social media exploits ur brain chemistry

Your "addiction" argument falls apart when you look at the actual numbers. The average person spends just 2 hours and 23 minutes daily on social media [1] - that's less time than most people spend watching TV or commuting to work. If that's addiction, then we're all addicted to everything we do regularly. The withdrawal studies you mention are methodologically flawed. They typically involve forcing people to quit cold turkey for arbitrary periods, then measuring discomfort - of course people feel weird when you suddenly remove any habitual activity from their lives. Try taking away someone's morning coffee, evening news, or weekend sports and you'll see identical "withdrawal" responses. This isn't chemical dependency, it's routine disruption. Your dopamine comparison to drugs is scientifically absurd. Everything pleasurable triggers dopamine - food, music, exercise, conversation, even solving puzzles. By your logic, crossword puzzles are as addictive as cocaine because they both activate reward pathways. The brain responds to positive stimuli - that's how it's supposed to work, not evidence of manipulation. The depression correlation you cite confuses cause and effect. Depressed people naturally gravitate toward activities that provide social connection and distraction. Social media doesn't create depression - it attracts people already struggling with it. Remove social media and those underlying issues remain unchanged. People aren't helpless victims of algorithms. Forty percent of Gen X actively monitor their usage, while only 20% of adults 57+ even try to limit it [1] - suggesting most users maintain healthy relationships with these platforms without intervention.

In neuroscience, prediction error is the gap between what the brain expects and what actually happens. Learning systems (including the human brain) become most engaged when prediction error is repeatedly triggered but never fully resolved. Social media platforms are designed to maximize this state. Algorithms constantly change what content gets rewarded—likes fluctuate, reach is inconsistent, trends shift without warning. This variability keeps the brain in a heightened learning mode, repeatedly releasing dopamine not as pleasure, but as a signal to keep seeking information. Importantly, dopamine spikes most when rewards are unpredictable, not when they are frequent. Because social media creates an artificial environment where prediction errors occur at an unusually high rate, the brain adapts by allocating more attention and motivation to the platform. When access is removed, the brain experiences withdrawal not because pleasure is gone, but because its prediction-error system is suddenly under-stimulated. This leads to restlessness, anxiety, and compulsive checking—classic withdrawal symptoms.

Your neuroscience argument sounds sophisticated, but it's built on a fundamental misunderstanding of how prediction error systems actually work. Reward prediction error only underlies reinforcement learning mechanisms when the reinforcement is unpredictable [1] - and here's the crucial part you're missing: social media algorithms aren't truly unpredictable. They're variable, yes, but within highly constrained parameters designed for engagement, not addiction. Research shows that intermittent reinforcement leads to higher mean performance and persistence compared to continuous reinforcement [1] - but this same mechanism drives everything from slot machines to video games to workplace productivity systems. Your logic would classify every reward system in modern life as addictive. The "withdrawal" you describe isn't neurochemical dependency - it's behavioral disruption. Studies show uncertainty-induced increases in dopamine outflow occur despite no apparent behavioral change during training, suggesting it doesn't directly affect motivated behavior [1]. The brain responds to pattern interruption, not chemical absence. Your prediction error theory actually undermines your addiction claim. RPE signals reflect an animal's internal understanding of its environment based on previous experiences, not necessarily accurate representations of error [1]. Users develop sophisticated mental models of how platforms work - they understand algorithmic patterns, gaming strategies, optimal posting times. This isn't helpless addiction; it's learned competency. Most damaging to your argument: Evidence shows how reward variability can confer addictive potential to non-drug reinforcers by exploiting psychological processes that rely on predictability [1] - but social media users retain conscious control over their engagement patterns. Unlike substance addiction, there's no chemical override of decision-making capacity.