The point is still the same. There is a recognized condition for people who are addicted to washing themselves. Do you see anyone trying to regulate the soap industry to protect the public? No. Why? Because soap is not generally addictive. Neither is gaming.
Yes, I forgot about all the studies since the 90s claiming to have false positives of soap creating murderers.
While gaming does have false positives studies saying games make murders. The same studies that congress use every time a school shooting and even the Aurora shooting happened.
Hillary Clinton wanted to put legislation in place regulating the industry, but never got off the ground after her legislation to fine game retailers failed to be passed.
In 2013, a psychotherapist, Dr. Russell Hyken, who deals with internet addiction talked about gaming addiction and walked the line by covering pros and cons, but the articles that referenced him only quoted him saying "Video games are actually designed to be addicting. The goal is to continually better your score which leads to obsession or addiction."
His full quote:
Video games are actually designed to be addicting. The goal is to continually better your score which leads to obsession or addiction. The social aspect of multiple player games creates a sense of belonging to a community of other like-minded people. It can fill a void for loneliness but also create some positive self-esteem. This further enhances the appeal of the on-line, cyber world.
I don't think video games addiction is the same as other addictions although it does light up the same pleasure center of the brain that alcohol and drugs impact. The question is, 'How is this impacting an individual’s life?' A temporary obsession is not the same as one who engages with these games most of his waking hours and is avoiding school or work over a long period of time. In fact, there is not a defined time-line for how much one plays to be considered an addict. That said, when quality of life has been greatly impact, one most likely is an addict.
Unlike alcohol and drugs, which can be avoided in life, one must interact with technology.
We have 30 years of people trying to regulate the industry and the ICD will give them the leverage they need to implement restrictions. Some game critics have voiced their concern on this and even researchers in the first link voiced concern about the repercussions the inclusion of Gaming Disorder will have across the board, which was in the abstract.
Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder. The empirical basis for a Gaming Disorder proposal, such as in the new ICD-11, suffers from fundamental issues. Our main concerns are the low quality of the research base, the fact that the current operationalization leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria, and the lack of consensus on symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal and human rights fallout that should be considered. Of particular concern are moral panics around the harm of video gaming. They might result in premature application of diagnosis in the medical community and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially for children and adolescents. Secondly, research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. Thirdly, the healthy majority of gamers will be affected negatively. We expect that the premature inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as part of a normal, healthy life. At this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature: the ICD-11 proposal for Gaming Disorder should be removed to avoid a waste of public health resources as well as to avoid causing harm to healthy video gamers around the world.