By David Stephen
Sedona, AZ — Problematic technology use is the label for social media, since the term addiction — appropriate for drugs or alcohol — does not apply. But what is the difference in the brain anyway? The brain does not know that some label is different from the other. In the brain, there are electrical and chemical signals responsible, conceptually, for every function. So, drug, alcohol or social media overuse may relay similarly. Then, what does it mean in the brain to doomscroll, like excessive drinking or substance use? How should this be displayed and scored, to taper social media misuse?
There is a new [March 27, 2026] analysis on NPR, Research points to how companies could make social media less addictive for teens, stating that, “It includes design changes like restricting infinite scroll, personalized feeds and notifications for minors. And they want to see age verifications that actually work.”
There is a [September 12, 2024] report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, The Use of “Addiction” Language Around Social Media Usage, stating that, “Unlike drugs or alcohol, which have no health benefits and are generally harmful, technology itself is not inherently bad or good. For one, internet use can be problematic if it crowds out other important activities such as sleep and exercise, even when the user does not experience other negative outcomes associated with substance addiction such as withdrawal. Instead of framing problematic use as addiction, research has largely transitioned to a framework of Problematic Internet Use (PIU). PIU represents a range of challenges that individuals might experience related to their internet and social media use including impulsive use, risky use, and physical impairment. Physicians can use the Problematic Internet Use Screening Scale (PRIUSS) to screen for PIU. Initial screening can use the short PRIUSS-3 as a 3-item screener, followed by the PRIUSS-18 if screening is positive.”
What is the Conceptual Brain Science of Social Media Addiction
The Center of Excellence [CoE] on Social Media and Youth Mental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics have among others, one critical job, what does it mean, in the brain, to engage excessively with social media?
The question is not about doing correlative studies, like if using social media causes distractions at school or anything like that, but mechanistic research for at least, the theoretical neuroscience of causation.
A label can only go so far, if the subject is the human mind. What is happening in the mind maybe a disorder, a problem, an anomaly or an aberration, but what are the elements responsible in the brain, what are they doing differently from normal, how can this be somewhat displayed? It is known that many good things in excess are bad, so if social media is bad in excess, then what makes it particularly so? What is the risk point, to drop it? What makes the mind susceptible?
If addiction is not to be used for social media, but the term problematic, then what are the components of the brain doing in a problematic episode differently from whey they are in an addictive state?
All the credible studies, in state-of-the-art neuroscience, for more than a century, have pointed to neurons as being involved in functions. Or, neurons with their electrical and chemical signals. So, whatever a memory, an emotion or a feeling is, can be described as configurations, assemblies or formations of electrical and chemical signals, conceptually.
Now, because neurons are often in clusters, electrical and chemical signals can be said to be in sets. And it is in those sets that they mechanize functions, conceptually. In sets, electrical and chemical signals can be said to interact. The extents to which they interact can be said to be determined by attributes. It is the differences in attributes of interactions, that specify functions, conceptually.
So, whatever it means to doomscroll, stay up late, feel bad because of a post, comment reactively and so forth, can be explained by the interactions and attributes of the electrical and chemical signals, conceptually.
This is what the CoE should have sought, at minimum, aiming for a way to get beyond staying outside of the brain, to assign labels, without regard for what the mechanistic process is, even conceptually.
The postulation is explored in Conceptual Biomarkers and Theoretical Biological Factors for Psychiatric and Intelligence Nosology.
Explaining Problematic Internet Use
There are suggestions about time limits, age restrictions, scroll caps, notification cuts, sleep boundaries and so forth, as paths against PIU, but what needs to come along these is at least a rough display of what is happening inside the mind.
Simply, what exactly does it mean that an individual is scrolling down continuously? If this will be interpreted, using a flowchart representing relays and destinations in the mind, how would that work?
Social media applications can be accompanied by an API, to display a parallel of what is happening in the mind, to ensure that kids, guardians and loved ones understand the risks and extents of contents.
This means that say the human mind has boxes [representing destinations], and then arrows, as relays between them, how can the flowchart, as a dynamic display show consumers the extent of social media misuse and risks that abound if refrain is not heeded?
Solving PIU as a disorder of mind means the need to show how the mind works for corresponding simplicity, becoming what can be termed theoretical neuroimaging, to contribute to solving the serious large-scale problem.
Consumers should see their minds, see what keywords, images, videos, sounds and texts are doing, and how long the mood might persist, as well as what it might mean to have cognitive and affective outcomes — adverse or otherwise.
A score can also accompany it, helping parents, schools, guardians and therapists to guard against more serious risks, even as lawsuits continue against Meta, YouTube, Tiktok, Snapchat and other social media platforms.
