If you’re “emotionally” attached to a computer, that’s your problem.
If Max Mustermann's attachment can be exploited for money, it's also a problem for whoever is economically intertwined with Max Mustermann even if they don't talk or even meet directly (the factory worker in the coffee cup production line supplying the coffee shop he would otherwise have picked something up from while on a date).
This is also why we have restrictions on drugs and gambling.
Question is, what fraction of the population is this Max Mustermann? (Not just today, but as a potential).
Not in this case.
I could, for example:
Liberty comes in many flavours, and maximising any one of them destroys all others. In this regard, it's like a geometric simplex[0]. The liberty of a cell to divide freely and without bound denies a human the liberty to live without cancer.
But that's not my point in this case.
> The reason that drugs and gambling are bad isn't because others supposedly "know" better, but because people as a collective will demonize and violate the rights of others when given an incentive. The wish to "help" or "save" is often a pretext for control.
Some may be — indeed, with regard to cannabis I would agree, this appears to have been the specific intent! — but I was thinking more of heroin when I wrote that, and heroin is something that even my most psychonautic acquaintance will not touch even once.
But, in certain cases, it is not only drugs which can be demonstrably an addiction, a condition where a person has already lost agency.
This can happen in other cases, and the threshold is arbitrary and does indeed vary with public mores that aren't always coherent let alone correct.
And I don't make any particular claim if in this case "addiction" is correct or not, only that it could be.
[0] more broadly, this is also why Goodhart's law[1] is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex