Roxanne Gasana, Campus Carrier staff writer
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has been facing increasing legal pressure as courts examine whether its platforms are intentionally addictive. A group of 33 attorneys general filed a federal lawsuit against Meta and Google for prioritizing advertising profits over the well-being of their users.
Some of these cases argued that endless scrolling and constant notifications promote addictive behavior among users.
While Meta denies any misconduct on its part, scientists and behavioral analysts argue that the design of social media feeds is capable of influencing user behavior.
Thom Ratkos, associate professor of psychological sciences, said social media apps work under the principle of a variable reinforcement schedule. This means that users are not rewarded every time they scroll, but they occasionally find something engaging or interesting. This unpredictability keeps users engaged in the same way gambling works.
“When we’re scrolling through social media, every post you see is novel,” Ratkos said. “Not every post is good, but enough of them are good that we’ll keep going.”
Ratkos said that the design of social media platforms is tied to advertisements and the revenue they bring in, so, platforms benefit more when users view more content and stay online longer.
“The reason these feeds exist is not to keep you connected to friends and family,” Ratkos said. “If you’re not paying for the service, you’re not the customer. The point of these companies is to show you advertisements.”
The effects may be especially strong among young users, as teenagers and young adults tend to be unaware of how these
systems work.
“The only real protection we have is our understanding of it,” Ratkos said. “Young people have had less time to learn how these systems influence behavior.”
Without that awareness, he explained, users may spend far more time on platforms than they intend to.
Education about algorithms and digital literacy skills has not been able to keep up with the technology itself. According to Ratkos, increasing awareness may lead users to use social media in a more intentional manner, such as going directly to their friends’ profiles as opposed to relying on the algorithm to find the content.
For some users, addiction is something that has affected them.
Bethel Barlow, a college student attending African Leadership University, said she realized her relationship with social media had become unhealthy when she discovered how much it controlled her routine.
“The first thing I grabbed when I opened my eyes in the morning and before I went to sleep was my phone,” Barlow said. “I couldn’t sleep without ‘phone time,’ and I couldn’t get out of bed without it.”
Barlow came to notice that social media had become intertwined with nearly every part of her day.
“I’m doing chores; I check my socials. I study a lot; I need to reward myself with socials,” she said. “That realization that I’d conditioned myself to that way was scary.”
She decided to take a break from social media to create healthier habits and priorities for her mind. The break caused a significant shift in how she consumed entertainment, and it also forced her to sit through moments she had previously filled with scrolling.
“Without social media, I started appreciating things like books, films and even music,” Barlow said. “Whenever I’d get the urge to scroll, I would open my phone, and there was nothing but my music and books, so I’d just lie on my bed and stare at the ceiling and think. Silence is humbling.”
However, while Barlow believes social media can have negative effects, she says the responsibility should not entirely be on the companies. She thinks it needs to be shared by companies, users and families.
“These platforms reflect the human condition,” Barlow said. “They don’t create negativity on their own; it comes from the people using them. I always say, ‘Raise your kids right and be kind’ before blaming Meta for everything.”
Ratkos, on the other hand, believes companies should be held accountable when their products hurt others.
“If the penalty is less than the benefit of engaging in those practices, why would they change?” Ratkos said. “It just becomes the cost of doing business.”