Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
If you’re anything like me, you can only scroll through so many “Pride and Prejudice” edits before realizing you may have a problem. To social media platforms, that’s anything but a problem. They most ardently love to keep us scrolling.
In a recent fiasco with dating apps, I noted that various platforms use psychologist B.F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning to draw us in. Like his test-subject pigeons pressing a button and occasionally receiving a sweet treat, our brains cherish the reward gained from a particular action. We’re bound to repeat it in hope of similar results. That’s why we often dig through Instagram Reels to find us an Insta-gem.
That’s where algorithms come in. Catered to our individual tastes, our feeds generously supply whatever enables that reward system. As we scroll for extended periods of time, platforms can piece together profiles on each user based on what they’re paying attention to, collecting details like age, gender, political alignment, etc. Then they sell this data to marketers, who use the information to tailor the advertisements we see.
This process is referred to as “data commercialization" and is the driving force behind social media profits. Meta, parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is estimated to earn roughly $243.46 billion in digital ad revenue this year, surpassing Google for the first time.
With this explanation, it should be unsurprising that the infamous algorithm is the primary source of our internet addictions, and it is intentionally so. Yet somehow, it’s merely a factor when it’s time to talk tech reform.
On Aug. 26, it was announced that Meta reached a $17.1 billion settlement with 47 states after it was alleged that the tech conglomerate deliberately designed their products to be addictive to developing adolescents and failed to disclose those risks to the public. That amount will, of course, be paid over a span of ten years and is only a fraction of the $200.97 billion Meta has made in one year.
But the courts didn’t let ‘em off that easily. In addition to paying just a pinch of money, Meta agreed to enforce “major product changes” for its teen users, who are, in theory, required to be thirteen or older to create accounts. These alterations include two-hour daily limits on Instagram and Facebook, scrolling interruptions and silenced notifications during school hours.
Algorithms, while lightly addressed, received only one change: teen accounts will have the option to opt out of the engagement-driven algorithm for reverse chronological feeds, or the presentation of content in the order it is posted.
However, many of Meta’s new safety features put in place to protect teens have been proven vastly ineffective. This means most teen users will likely not be strictly subjected to these changes. And even with enforcement, these changes are quite easy to bypass – the algorithm opt-out in particular gives teens very easy access to the addictive system.
Time and time again, we manage to trap Mark Zuckerberg in a court room, shake our fists with indignation and release him back to terrorize the village. By failing to firmly tackle the core issue of algorithms, these lawsuits are little more than a slap on the wrist. Even when product changes are involved, they brush over the source of the addiction in favor of options that simply try to contain it.
A great way to start safeguarding users against internet addictions would be to confront the engagement-based algorithm head-on. It would surely be a costly safeguard at that, so the chance that Meta would willingly implement it is less than low.
Our friends in the land down under are attempting to introduce more steadfast regulation.
Last week, the Australian government announced a potential law that would allow all social media users to opt out of engagement algorithms. Under the proposed legislation, platforms would be required to give their users a simple one-switch button to turn off algorithmic content recommendations. This comes as part of the continent’s larger, on-going initiative toward internet safety.
The proposal has its pitfalls. Some experts have argued that opt-outs only offer users the option to quit the algorithm that they’re already conditioned to using. Rather, they suggest opt-ins with reverse chronological order set as the default, so users can affirm they want their feeds to use the more potent system.
Others have suggested giving users more input over what goes on their feed. According to Fergus Ryan, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Cyber, Technology and Security Program, the decision between engagement algorithms and chronological ones is not enough.
“Instead of forcing Australians into a crude choice between Big Tech’s engagement-driven black boxes and a raw chronological dump,” he wrote, “the digital duty of care should be ambitious enough to let users fully choose how their feeds are curated and by whom.”
And ideally, apps would thoroughly test features before their rollout, as any other product on the market is required to. But since history has provided a different approach, we’re left with no choice but to play a bit of catch-up.
Algorithm-based regulation could work wonders, if properly carried out and enforced. Whether or not Americans will be given some similar option is dubious, to say the least. Meta would be less than thrilled, and there’s no doubt as to why. I think it was best put by a recent New York Times guest essayist and digital culture expert, Maxi Heitmayer, in his column on Gen Z’s response to our culture of endless content.
“None of this is technically difficult, but commercially inconvenient,” Heitmayer said of potentially redesigning the addictive algorithm. “And that is why it will not happen voluntarily.”
Emma Howard (she/her) is a junior studying journalism.
