There are so many neuropsychological flaws in this case

E.g. filings state TikTok is designed to be "intentionally addictive". The conclusion here is that TikTok, a software construct, causes addiction.

Many would agree that this is valid. But, do you know who *doesn't* think it's valid?

THE AMERCIAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION!

/2

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) produces the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), a core text which lists all the mental disorders, and their diagnostic criteria, acknowledged by the APA.

Various forms of addictions are in there. But 'TikTok addiction' is not.

/3

You may disagree. You may think the DSM/APA are too restrictive/narrow/biased/etc. And you may be 100% correct to think this. That's a very salient arument.

But even so, in the here and now, the point remains that US states are suing TikTok, in US courts, on the grounds that it causes an addictive disorder, one that, according to the US medical system, doesn't exist

/4

I'm no sort of legal professional, let alone a relevant American one, but I can't help but assume that this is a tricky conclusion to sell to anyone.

/5

There's also the a basic parroting of the usual 'TikTok [or insert SM app of choice] is seriously bad for young people's mental health!' claims, despite even the most extensive research finding little to no evidence that this is actually the case.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-31872-001

Yes, many 'concerned parents' passionately believe this to be true. But you'd *hope* that STATE LEVEL LEGAL CASES would require a higher threshold of evidence than 'loads of people say so!'

/6

And for the inevitable replies:

YES, I have read Jonathan Haidt's Anxious Generation

YES, he's done much research. But so have I, and countless professional researchers. We all think he's wrong.

NO, he doesn't 'make some good points'. He says what you assume is true. That's a very different thing. 'Validating your feelings' is not the same as 'accuracy'.

It is, however, the same as 'massive book sales', depressingly.

/7

But here's the thing; all these complaints are peripheral. The real problem with the case against TikTok is:

Assuming reporting is accurate, a key factor of the complaint is that TikTok 'induces dopamine' in young people. And that is seemingly bad enough to warrant suing

/8

So, piecing together the available info presented in the news reports, the case against TikTok is apparently:

- TikTok induces dopamine in the brains of young people

- Dopamine is involved in pleasure, reward, and *addiction*

- Ergo, 'inducing dopamine' is damaging, legal penalties should apply.

Me:

/9

Pains me to say this, but let's *leave aside* the fact that dopamine does SOO much more than just 'trigger pleasure'.

And here's a Psyche article (that I also wrote) about how complex the pleasure response is in any case, if interested

https://psyche.co/ideas/the-fascinating-science-of-pleasure-goes-way-beyond-dopamine

/10

Ultimately, this legal case against TikTok, if successful, could set the precedent that you can be sued for 'inducing dopamine' in the brain of a young person.

That has *horrifying* ramifications. Ones that'd make Orwell's worst fever dreams seem like a mild inconvenience

/11

Because once you make 'inducing dopamine' (in context of the pleasure/reward response) a legally punishable act, logically anything else that does it is similarly liable.

And what 'induces dopamine' in the brains of young people, and is thus legally liable?

Well...

/12