> Stop using the medical word addiction in contexts where it's highly inappropriate. Youtube isn't even a single thing
You're playing with semantics in a context where
1) everyone understands what the author is saying when talking about addiction, making it appropriate to convey what they mean
2) the word pre-dates DSM, the fact that DSM defines that in a medical sense doesn't change the definition from the dictionary, which fits very much with what the author is describing (1). That's very much you getting angry at sound engineers because they are not engineers per the sense of professional colleges, whereas that's how their profession is called.
3) Give time to all the troubles created by digital products to be studied, understood, and make their way into that guide. Psychology and mental afflictions are still a very evolving field of medicine. DSM is changing to reflect that, a notable change between IV and V was regrouping AS into ADS because the symptoms and the underlying cause are similar. The is the case for what everyone calls digital addiction. I suspect there will be some forms of that formally coming up.
4) the dependency mechanisms work in the same way, people suffering from it have the same withdrawal symptoms. There's some valid criticism for the DSM not to categorize it as addiction (2)(3).
> Video addiction is not a thing. See how stupid it sounds when you say it like it is?
5) the author's struggle to disconnect is real, the impact on their life is real, their pain is real. I am not sure what authorizes you to discard their pain, and to qualify this as stupid. Show a little empathy.
1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
2: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society...
3: https://unitedbrainassociation.org/brain-resources/digital-a...