I agree that "addiction" can be overused (irony unintentional), but I think it can be objectively defined by whether or not it causes a lasting biochemical change in the user (eventually), which causes discomfort or pain upon withdrawal. Food, for example, does not; we enjoy it (sometimes), but having more does not make us eat ever-larger amounts (if it's, say, a green salad; high-fructose corn syrup I admit the jury is still out).
So, the assertion that social media is "addictive" would translate to, "it conditions the user to require a dopamine (or whatever) hit that they will return to the social media to acquire, and will feel bad (worse than before they used it) if they stop using." Whether or not that's true of social media is debatable, but I think it is raising at least a valid question.
On the other hand, even though Stack Overflow has a lot of the same software features, it has no such problem, so I think the important question is what does Facebook do differently than Stack Overflow to cause people to spend ever-larger amounts of time on it, to no real purpose?
So, the assertion that social media is "addictive" would translate to, "it conditions the user to require a dopamine (or whatever) hit that they will return to the social media to acquire, and will feel bad (worse than before they used it) if they stop using." Whether or not that's true of social media is debatable, but I think it is raising at least a valid question.
On the other hand, even though Stack Overflow has a lot of the same software features, it has no such problem, so I think the important question is what does Facebook do differently than Stack Overflow to cause people to spend ever-larger amounts of time on it, to no real purpose?