an Proft sat down with psychology professor Chris Ferguson to explore the nature of addiction in the digital age, drawing parallels between the booming sports gambling industry and rising concerns over social media use among young people. The conversation was sparked by a recent Kite & Key Media video highlighting the dramatic rise of legal sports betting since the 2018 Supreme Court decision that opened the door for states to legalize gambling beyond Nevada and New Jersey.
The data is eye-catching: Sports betting revenue in the U.S. has ballooned from $430 million in 2018 to over $11 billion in 2023. At the same time, a Pew Research poll found only 8% of Americans believe legalized sports gambling is a net positive for the country. This dissonance led Proft and Ferguson to discuss the mechanics of addiction—both real and perceived—and how the term is used in modern debates.
Ferguson emphasized that much of the rhetoric around addiction to things like social media or video games often stretches or misapplies the clinical definition of the term. While substance use disorders like methamphetamine addiction create profound and lasting changes in brain chemistry, most forms of media use result in only modest, natural increases in dopamine—akin to the enjoyment someone might get from eating pizza or listening to a favorite song. “It’s important to distinguish between overuse and addiction,” Ferguson said, noting that only a small fraction of users actually develop harmful patterns of behavior.
This nuance becomes especially important when regulating industries like sports gambling or social media. Ferguson pointed to a New Jersey lawsuit in which a woman claimed DraftKings encouraged her husband’s gambling addiction despite knowing of his problem. “What we’re really seeing in these cases,” Ferguson argued, “is not widespread addiction, but a subset of individuals who struggle to moderate any number of behaviors, from gambling to religion to even exercise.”
Proft drew a connection to the often-heard claim that social media is addicting teenagers by design, using dopamine spikes to manipulate their brains. Ferguson pushed back on that narrative as well, arguing that the science doesn’t support the idea of TikTok or Instagram hijacking brain chemistry in the way drugs do. Instead, he said, many of the concerns about social media are rooted more in cultural commentary than neuroscience. He cited studies that show family dynamics and school environments—particularly adverse experiences and toxic stress—are more predictive of teen mental health issues than screen time alone.
The discussion also touched on a broader societal impulse to blame new technologies for longstanding problems. Ferguson pointed out that earlier generations faced similar panics over comic books, radio, and television. “There’s this nostalgic utopianism,” he said, “as if we had a perfectly healthy social fabric before social media came along.”
At the same time, Ferguson acknowledged that certain users—particularly those already struggling with mental health or familial issues—may be more vulnerable to problematic behavior online or in gambling apps. But he warned against mistaking rare cases for general rules.
The conversation ended with a call for a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach to policymaking. Rather than leaning on sweeping narratives or speculative science, both Ferguson and Proft advocated for looking closely at real data—and at the small percentage of individuals who may genuinely need help—before rushing into regulation.
The interview underscored the complexity of addressing addiction in the age of digital engagement and instant gratification. Whether it’s sports gambling, social media, or another evolving platform, the challenge lies in distinguishing actual harm from societal discomfort with changing habits.