Linden Corbett
October 16, 2026
Mainstream news, government organizations, and parents internationally have long been critics of the amount of time spent online by younger generations. Now, their critique requires major adjustment and reflection on the effects that digital addiction can have. Within the last two decades, phones and social media have been linked with negative cognitive and mental health side effects. Moreover, new research continues to be published and should be accounted for in policy measures globally. Beyond the known mental health effects, the physiological and social impact of constant technology use on the body and mind is becoming impossible to ignore.
Part of the reason the issue of digital addiction is not often approached in public policy more is because of how widespread it is. “Digital addiction” is a general term referencing addictions to social media, gaming, smartphones themselves, porn and cybersex, and compulsive information seeking [1]. Each of these categories directly influence brain functions that correspond to addictive behaviors, entertaining different reward systems in different people. Worldwide, around eighty-four percent of people own a smartphone [2] with more recent estimates reporting that ninety-eight percent of Americans own a mobile phone [3]. More important, however, is how much people interact with their phones daily. In America, the numbers support the idea that an alarming percentage of the population is addicted to something no one is prepared to quit. The average American checks their phone two-hundred and five times a day, averaging less than two minutes spent online per pickup [3]. Although these intervals are short, the impact on the brain is huge. Research on digital addiction shows that technology causes “alterations in reward pathways and prefrontal control networks, mirroring mechanisms seen in substance use disorders (SUDs)” [1].
Digital addiction wires connections in the brain that directly and indirectly result in damage to the human body and mind. With its ability to capture the vast majority of the population, this effect conditions public perception. A phenomenon called the “social normalisation of deviance” is observed, in which there is little to no resistance to events as a result of a repeated action with a lack of immediate disaster [4]. Take for example researchers who performed “a five-year longitudinal study into young people” and recreational drug use, including drugs such as cannabis, LSD, amphetamines, and ecstasy [4]. The conclusion ultimately demonstrated that public perception began to view drug use as more of a leisure activity than a form of rebellion [4]. The absence of impact, or inhibited shock value, dulls the sensitivity of the issue at hand and is lost the more the action happens. This type of social conditioning affects public perception for all types of events, from recreational drug usage to failed space shuttle launch tests [4], resulting in a mediation of people’s expectations for what is normal in a digital age. Swaths of people in communities around the globe now turn to digital technologies in times of stress, anxiety, and other behaviors that engage neural pathways to seek out some form of comfort. Social behaviors that once could have been considered rude or impolite are now becoming more normalized
While society can become normalised to deviance, the human body is harder to trick and influence. Research on human interaction with technology has been conducted for the better part of two decades; the human brain and other physical factors are still adjusting to its effects. In part, digital addiction is cyclical. Blue light and sleep disruption indirectly upset physiological functions critical to adolescent development, and in adults weaken abilities like memory, attention, and emotional regulation [5]. More specifically, being online or looking at screens prolongs the eyes exposure to light that “can cause decreased blink rates and increased ocular surface exposure to light and dirt particles, which leads to unstable tear films and evaporative dry eye” which, in addition to inhibiting quality of sleep, increases the likelihood of eye strain and dry eye disease [1]. The amount of strain digital addiction puts on our neurobiology is becoming more apparent. This in turn leads to disruptions in neuroendocrine activity which spells out long-term disaster on the body with no intervention. Research has also proven how “neurobiologically, digital addictive behaviours engage brain reward and stress pathways in ways similar to drugs of abuse, inducing neural adaptations over time” [1]. Research has also found that digital addiction affects neurotransmitter functioning beyond dopamine, expanding the elevated gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels and inducing disruptions in glutamate pathways [1]. GABA levels are associated with excessive nervous system suppression which in the long term can result in immune dysfunctions and maladaptations, chronic stress, and central nervous system depression as a result of neuroendocrine dysregulation [6]. Disruption in glutamate pathways leads to overactivity in the brain’s receptors, overpowering neurons with calcium, resulting in cell death. Cell death in turn causes tissue damage, inflammation, and organ dysfunction [6]. These interruptions in the central nervous system, in addition to inflammation, can be contributing factors heavily associated with autoimmune diseases [7]. Digital addiction lacks the pharmacological toxicity and direct relation to organ damage that comes with SUDs, but are just as hard to quit [1] and leave a similar, lasting impact on critical physiological functions.
However, solutions to mass digital addiction are vastly different than that of addictions to substances. Internationally there have been coalitions and agreements supporting eradicating opioid addiction, but measures to eradicate and recognize digital addiction may be harder won. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UN Commission on Narcotics Control, and many more agencies were able to collaborate on an opioid strategy and even push an agreement through the UN General Assembly in 2018 “pledging to strengthen international cooperation on law enforcement, education, justice, and health” [8]. The opioid strategy is supported by action from institutions like the World Health Organization, World Customs Organization, Universal Postal Union, and the African Union to focus on five pillars: “early warning and trend analysis, rational prescribing and access to opioids for medical and scientific use, prevention and treatment programmes, international law enforcement operations to disrupt trafficking, and strengthening national and international counternarcotic capacity” [9]. What can be learned from the political infrastructure developed to eradicate substance use addictions and the circulation of substances, is that the international community will have significant pull in establishing infrastructure to eradicate digital addiction. South Korea has reported and observed “digital addiction as a serious public health issue, establishing specialised treatment centres and intervention programs” [1]. Additionally, there have been meta-analyses and reviews evaluating college students in India on criteria for internet addiction. The prevalence of which found nearly twenty percent of college students to meet the criteria for internet addiction, and forty percent to qualify under more inclusive criteria [1]. Globally there is a push for more regulation and restriction on children and adolescents’ usage of technology including pushes from Australia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the United States, and the European Union [10]. This list of countries have deep political influence on the international scale, and it should be leveraged.
The European Parliament has already made headway in presenting interrelated rules to be considered by the European Union. The main aspect of the proposal addresses addictive techniques that are currently not addressed under the directive on Unfair Commercial Practice. These techniques include “infinite scroll, default auto play, constant push, and read receipt notifications” [11]. Following the first aspect is a call to attention on ethical design. Members of the European Parliament are pushing for companies to design their products and services without dark patterns, misleading, or addictive design and are attempting to do so by proposing a digital “right not to be disturbed” [11]. This right would be pivotal in establishing rules and regulations for the designs that are implemented into software and applications. However, this push will be fighting an uphill battle. Apple Inc.’s iPhone dominates the smartphone industry, and has been since the 2010s. Part of this domination is due to Apple’s ability to defy rules on consumer electronics that previously assumed that the older the device is, more competitors emerge and prices lower [12]. Where companies like Samsung and Huawei have struggled, Apple has been able to attract new customers from major markets in Europe, China, Japan, and India [12]. The advantage that this provides to Apple has strengthened their influence. In February of 2026, the Digital Fairness Act was in the proposal stage to the European Union to protect consumers from addictive online features and was met with pushback from lobbying groups Digital Europe and the Computer and Communications Industry Association [13]. Both of which are backed by Apple, with the former also being backed by other names from Big Tech including Samsung, Amazon, Google, TikTok, and Meta [14, 15]. All of this came to a head when in March, Apple CEO Tim Cook, went on national television and publicly stated that “I don’t want people using them [phones] too much… This is not how you want to spend your day. Go out and spend it in nature” [16]. The contradiction presented here speaks volumes for a company to know that addiction to their product is prevalent, yet profitable. Digital addiction affects a vast majority of people and more research is still required to evaluate just how many are addicted, and how deep the addiction runs. Regardless of generation or geographic location, there is a product provided by gargantuan firms that are able to target hyper-personal reward systems in every single one of us and exploit it to everyone’s physiological and neurological detriment.
As for the steps forward, there will need to be a layered approach with urgency. Research has shown that “most interventions, from cognitive-behavioural therapy and counselling to exercise programs, have weak or inconsistent efficacy, underscoring the need for more robust research” [1]. What can be done for younger generations as of right now, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics is to consider the extent of child’s needs that require technology, the content that is being consumed, opportunities for calm without devices, what screen time is crowding out time for, and establishing open communication about use [1]. Even with these measures there is still a need for international cooperation on research and development on the scope of digital addiction, the most vulnerable groups, possible treatments for digital addiction, as well as the violent and radical ramifications that digital addiction translates from the internet into the physical world. Collaboration on international policy from public health departments will also be crucial in spreading urgent awareness, in addition to supporting lobbyist groups to push governments across the world to coalesce against Big Tech. Treating mass addiction of any sort is a huge obstacle in and of itself, but the larger issue is treating the mass that does not believe they are addicted.
Works Cited
[1] Patel, Dipesh, Abhishek Kshatri, Sahitya Kommuru, and Chaitanya Javvaji. 2025. “A Narrative Review of Digital Addiction and Health: A New Challenge for Modern Medicine.” Cureus Journal of Medical Science, (December). 10.7759/cureus.100491.
[2] Winbush, Ari, Daniel McDuff, John Hernandez, and Nicholas Allen. 2025. “Smartphone use in a large US adult population: Temporal associations between objective measures of usage and mental well-being.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, (October). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2427311122.
[3] Bazen, Alexus. n.d. “Cell Phone Statistics (2026) | ConsumerAffairs®.” Consumer Affairs. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/cell-phone-statistics.html.
[4] Brown, Jessica. n.d. “The powerful way that ‘normalisation’ shapes our world.” BBC. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170314-how-do-we-determine-when-a-behaviour-is-normal.
[5] Hyndych, Anna, Rima El-Abassi, and Edward Mader. 2025. “The Role of Sleep and the Effects of Sleep Loss on Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Processes.” Cureus Journal of Medical Science, (May). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.84232.
[6] Medicine, Institute o., and Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous S. Disorders. 2011. Glutamate-Related Biomarkers in Drug Development for Disorders of the Nervous System: Workshop Summary. Edited by Diana E. Pankevich, Bruce M. Altevogt, and Miriam Davis. N.p.: National Academies Press.
[7] “Can Substance Abuse Cause Autoimmune Disease? | TX.” n.d. Promises Brazos Valley. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://brazosvalleyrehab.com/can-substance-abuse-cause-autoimmune-disease/.
[8]“Combating the International Dimensions of the Opioid Crisis – USGLC.” n.d. usglc. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.usglc.org/combating-the-international-dimensions-of-the-opioid-crisis/.
[9] “The Strategy.” n.d. UNODC. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/opioid-crisis/strategy.html.
[10] Tadpatrikar, Ashwini, Manoj Sharma, and Pratima Murthy. 2025. “Policies and public health initiatives to mitigate the mental health impact of internet use among children and adolescents.” Indian Journal of Psychiatry, (December). 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry_409_25.
[11] “New EU rules needed to address digital addiction | News.” n.d. European Parliament. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231208IPR15767/new-eu-rules-needed-to-address-digital-addiction.
[12] Mickle, Tripp. n.d. “As Smartphone Industry Sputters, the iPhone Expands Its Dominance (Published 2023).” The New York Times. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/technology/apple-iphone-17.html.
[13] Carpenter, Owen. n.d. “Revealed: How Big Tech is lobbying on forthcoming EU Digital Fairness Act.” EUobserver. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://euobserver.com/201452/revealed-how-big-tech-is-lobbying-on-forthcoming-eu-digital-fairness-act/.
[14] “Corporate members – DIGITALEUROPE.” n.d. DigitalEurope. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.digitaleurope.org/corporate/.
[15] “CCIA Member: Apple.” n.d. Computer & Communications Industry Association. https://ccianet.org/about/members/apple/.
[16] Gillette, Sam. n.d. “Apple CEO Tim Cook Urges Users to Get Off Their Smartphones and Spend Their Days ‘in Nature.’” People.com. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://people.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-urges-users-to-get-off-phones-and-experience-nature-11928105.