The recent landmark social media harm case against Meta and Google in the US has brought to the forefront the issue of how features such as infinite scroll and autoplay impact users, particularly children. As reported by The Guardian, the case has sparked a debate about the responsibility of tech companies in designing their platforms. The lawyer prosecuting the case, Mark Lanier, claimed that these features are designed to addict users, while the tech companies insist that they provide a safer and healthier experience.
Features like autoplay videos, infinite scrolling, and constant alerts have become an integral part of online platforms. According to Arturo Béjar, a whistleblower who worked in child online safety at Meta until 2021, these features work by providing an infinite supply of content that gives users a constant dopamine hit. Béjar told The Guardian that this mechanic of infinite scroll creates a never-ending cycle of chasing and searching for something interesting and rewarding.
Internal documents revealed during the trial showed that Meta employees were concerned about the rising signs of "reward tolerance" among users. One email conversation in 2020 even referred to Instagram as a "drug." Sonia Livingstone, a professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics, noted that when young people scroll through their feed, they make split-second decisions to swipe, swipe, swipe, and watch, always feeling that the next thing could be good.
Understanding Autoplay and Its Consequences
Videos that autoplay are now ubiquitous, from the Netflix homescreen to YouTube and Instagram. However, according to Béjar, consumers initially hated this feature, finding it disruptive. Despite this, the result was that more people watched more videos, and advertisers were happy, but users were unhappy. Autoplay triggers a reaction in humans to watch enough to understand what is going on, making it difficult to stop watching.
Lanier compared endless scroll and autoplay to getting free tortilla chips at a restaurant and not being able to stop eating them. Notifications and likes are other parts of the social media apparatus that keep people, especially children, hooked. Mark Griffith, professor emeritus of behavioral addiction at Nottingham Trent University, explained that winning the competition for likes is a rewarding thing that gives users a little hit of enjoyment, releasing dopamine and adrenaline pointers.
Griffith noted that social media consumption mostly falls into the categories of "habitual use," which can affect productivity and relationships without ruining one's life, and "problematic use," which has more serious implications. While some people may experience addiction, Griffith emphasized that it is not the same as addiction to nicotine or cocaine. Instead, social media has a "moreish quality" that can lead to overuse.
The Verdict and Its Implications
Giving evidence during the trial, Instagram's chief executive, Adam Mosseri, insisted that social media is not "clinically addictive." People can be addicted to social media in the same way that they can be addicted to a good television show, but that is not the same thing, he argued. The jury's verdict in the case against Meta and Google will be closely watched, as it could redefine tech companies' responsibilities for their platform design.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the tech industry and its approach to designing platforms that prioritize user well-being. As the debate surrounding social media harm continues, it is essential to consider the perspectives of experts, whistleblowers, and users themselves to create a more nuanced understanding of the complex issues at play.
