This is genuinely one of the more insane articles I've read here on Substack.
A lot of gambling that is accessed by problem gamblers is NOT regulated, for a start.
You don't have to lie/create a flashy or provocative title to have a point. Shopping addiction is real, gambling addiction is real. Both are bad. Whether one is better or worse than the other can't truly be measured.
You're right that gambling regulation is far from perfect. What I said is that, unlike shopping, it's at least been recognised as a public health issue. Some of the existing measures could serve as inspiration if governments ever decided to help people suffering from compulsive buying instead of quietly siding with the industries that profit from it.
As for the title, I'm surprised it’s the only thing you focused on. Shopping addiction is real, under-discussed, and causes real harm. That’s exactly why I wrote this, and that’s why I chose a title that would make people pause and actually read.
Reducing the entire piece to “insane,” based only on the headline, feels disproportionate. Also, I’m open to criticism, it's part of the game and I would love nothing more than this issue being discussed more wildly. But calling it “genuinely one of the more insane articles on Substack”? there's a difference between disagreement and contempt. Leaving it there.
I read your article. You include absolutes, which are wrong.
There is contempt, because when it comes to things like this, it can be life or death for people. So I think writing and publishing an article where you say things that aren't true, is very very dangerous.
I reduced your article to insane based on the article itself. For example, if you had bothered to read the scientific journal you'd linked, you'd see that problem gambling/at risk gambling is far higher than the 1% you gave it.
There's a reason you'll never see an article titled “why alcoholism is so much worse than gambling addiction!!!” from writers who aren't just looking for clicks - because we know that all addictions are horrific and not worthy of comparison.
Shopping addiction is very real, and I acknowledge it. I'm not going to shit on it simply because it hasn't affected me. I'm merely going to choose not to write about it.
Not everybody has to have an opinion on everything.
Sean, what do you think? What if I changed the title to: "Shopping should be regulated, like gambling", and erased the data prevalence comparison, which I recognize was a mistake.
I think that way the focus would be really on my main arguments: Shopping is a behavioral addiction + it's not regulated + it's glorified.
I care about this piece and I'm trying to find a way to make it solid. I value your perspective. I am on Substack so I can share my opinions, but also get them challenged so I can grow and learn from others, which is harder to do on other social platforms.
If you answer, I would appreciate you avoid sentences like not everybody has to have an opinion on everything. I'm grateful for feedback and opportunities to learn from my mistakes, but it's just harder to get there if I have to battle with shame first.
I can appreciate your last bit/request - I apologise for being so pitifully scathing (i.e. a whiny jerk)
I definitely think that new title would help. Again, I think it's all about not making 'absolute statements' about things that aren't. When it comes to addictions/ writing about them, it does limit you, as so much is subjective. But, if we don't recognise the strength of others struggles, we only come across as minimising them.
Shopping addiction is very real, and I would never want to minimise that; I genuinely appreciate you writing about it. I think that if you tightened the piece up/ expanded a little as you suggested, with comparisons to gambling/alcohol advertising, how they're regulated with warnings etc and shopping ads aren't, that's a great point too.
Again, I do apologise for being a jerk. I was quite annoyed that you had awkward to have purposefully written something that could hurt so many - without realising that was probably NOT your intentions at all.
Such a thought-provoking article. Sometimes the time spent scrolling can be overlooked if you don't actually buy anything.
*THIS! great article.
This is genuinely one of the more insane articles I've read here on Substack.
A lot of gambling that is accessed by problem gamblers is NOT regulated, for a start.
You don't have to lie/create a flashy or provocative title to have a point. Shopping addiction is real, gambling addiction is real. Both are bad. Whether one is better or worse than the other can't truly be measured.
Let's try to do better.
You're right that gambling regulation is far from perfect. What I said is that, unlike shopping, it's at least been recognised as a public health issue. Some of the existing measures could serve as inspiration if governments ever decided to help people suffering from compulsive buying instead of quietly siding with the industries that profit from it.
As for the title, I'm surprised it’s the only thing you focused on. Shopping addiction is real, under-discussed, and causes real harm. That’s exactly why I wrote this, and that’s why I chose a title that would make people pause and actually read.
Reducing the entire piece to “insane,” based only on the headline, feels disproportionate. Also, I’m open to criticism, it's part of the game and I would love nothing more than this issue being discussed more wildly. But calling it “genuinely one of the more insane articles on Substack”? there's a difference between disagreement and contempt. Leaving it there.
I read your article. You include absolutes, which are wrong.
There is contempt, because when it comes to things like this, it can be life or death for people. So I think writing and publishing an article where you say things that aren't true, is very very dangerous.
I reduced your article to insane based on the article itself. For example, if you had bothered to read the scientific journal you'd linked, you'd see that problem gambling/at risk gambling is far higher than the 1% you gave it.
There's a reason you'll never see an article titled “why alcoholism is so much worse than gambling addiction!!!” from writers who aren't just looking for clicks - because we know that all addictions are horrific and not worthy of comparison.
Shopping addiction is very real, and I acknowledge it. I'm not going to shit on it simply because it hasn't affected me. I'm merely going to choose not to write about it.
Not everybody has to have an opinion on everything.
Sean, what do you think? What if I changed the title to: "Shopping should be regulated, like gambling", and erased the data prevalence comparison, which I recognize was a mistake.
I think that way the focus would be really on my main arguments: Shopping is a behavioral addiction + it's not regulated + it's glorified.
I care about this piece and I'm trying to find a way to make it solid. I value your perspective. I am on Substack so I can share my opinions, but also get them challenged so I can grow and learn from others, which is harder to do on other social platforms.
If you answer, I would appreciate you avoid sentences like not everybody has to have an opinion on everything. I'm grateful for feedback and opportunities to learn from my mistakes, but it's just harder to get there if I have to battle with shame first.
I can appreciate your last bit/request - I apologise for being so pitifully scathing (i.e. a whiny jerk)
I definitely think that new title would help. Again, I think it's all about not making 'absolute statements' about things that aren't. When it comes to addictions/ writing about them, it does limit you, as so much is subjective. But, if we don't recognise the strength of others struggles, we only come across as minimising them.
Shopping addiction is very real, and I would never want to minimise that; I genuinely appreciate you writing about it. I think that if you tightened the piece up/ expanded a little as you suggested, with comparisons to gambling/alcohol advertising, how they're regulated with warnings etc and shopping ads aren't, that's a great point too.
Again, I do apologise for being a jerk. I was quite annoyed that you had awkward to have purposefully written something that could hurt so many - without realising that was probably NOT your intentions at all.
I completely agree with the 'absolute statements' and your suggestions for edits. I will take the time to make them tonight.
I also never thought you were a whiny jerk :) just someone passionate who was angry, which I understand because I'm also human. I'll be in touch! :)
my inbox is always open to chat/ help/ learn! x