I'd counter that the definition of a consumer product is to trade a product with the consumer -- you provide something of value to them (the product), they provide something of value to you (the money).
I suppose the implication with addiction (and its analogies here) are that they provide a way to get something of value from the consumer (money) without providing them any value in return -- only the illusion of value. Its not to say that all addictive products are inherently value-less -- but that their perceived value is far greater than their actual value -- by design (with the perception being driven by addiction).
Your specific point -- that endorphin hit you get is a social reinforcement for a positive contribution to the community of Hacker News. Its not an addiction by design -- its using our internal wiring as it was intended (social contribution makes us feel happy)
I would add a caveat though that in some cases the addiction itself is a form of value.
Broccoli that is as addictive as chocolate might be more inherently valuable than normal broccoli - since consumers of it are more likely to keep eating it and stay healthier, and so it could be sold for a premium to those who value that.
Though if it later sold for as much as cocaine because of withdrawal symptoms...I would consider that a problem!
Not sure that was a counter as much as agreement, based on parent's comment after the quote :-)
EDIT: now I'm confused. The comment I thought you were replying to appears to be a different comment now and the original deleted. Maybe I'm going crazy.
