Who’s Responsible for the Infinite Scroll?
- Sangwoo Cho
- 13 minutes ago
- 3 min read
As someone on the older end of Gen Z, I’ve used YouTube long enough to remember when watching videos required some degree of intention. I would search for something, choose a video, watch it, and decide what to watch next. The early days of Instagram were similar. The platform largely revolved around posts from people I had deliberately chosen to follow, and there was always a point where I had seen most of what there was to see.
The experience is noticeably different today. The rise of short-form content such as YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and TikTok has gradually rendered social media consumption more passive. There is little need to search for anything or even know what one wants to watch. A personalized feed provides an endless stream of content, and the user’s main responsibility is simply to keep swiping.
A trial currently underway in Oakland has brought greater scrutiny to whether this shift is merely the natural evolution of social media or the result of intentional design. A bipartisan coalition of 29 states is accusing Meta of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram in ways that addict younger users while misleading the public about the risks involved. Meta has denied those allegations and maintains that the states have failed to establish that its platforms directly cause the harms being described. The case could eventually force changes to features such as infinite scroll and other mechanisms designed to increase engagement.
The broader issue extends well beyond children. Excessive screen time is commonly treated as a problem of individual self-control. Users know they can close an app or put their phones down at any time, and parents can limit their children’s access to social media. From this perspective, responsibility ultimately rests with the person holding the device. However, that explanation loses considerable weight when we consider the structure of the platforms themselves. Recommendation systems constantly monitor user behavior and preferences, gradually becoming more efficient at selecting content likely to catch and retain attention. Autoplay keeps that content flowing without requiring another decision.
Some researchers have compared these mechanisms to principles commonly found in gambling, particularly variable rewards. A slot machine does not reward a gambler after every pull. Part of its appeal comes from the uncertainty surrounding when the next reward will arrive. Short-form content can emulate certain aspects of that experience: several uninteresting videos may appear before one is especially engaging. The possibility that the next swipe will provide that reward further incentivizes users to keep scrolling.
Of course, browsing through Instagram Reels does not equate to gambling, nor does compulsive social media use equate to chemical addiction. The main takeaway from the comparison is an important question about personal responsibility. I have dealt with nicotine dependence long enough to understand that knowing a habit is harmful does not make counteracting it any easier. Cigarettes, vapes, and other nicotine products create a form of dependency far different from scrolling through social media, but both can expose the limits of describing every repeated behavior as a completely independent, deliberate choice.
Social media companies also have an obvious incentive to encourage that repetition. Their platforms depend heavily on engagement, measured through indicators such as watch time, clicks, likes, and shares. The longer a user remains on the platform, the more opportunities there are to display advertisements, collect behavioral data, and further refine recommendations. Making a platform difficult to leave is therefore not necessarily a flaw in the product. In many ways, it is part of what makes the product successful.
Political debate surrounding social media has traditionally focused on content. Lawmakers have argued over matters such as misinformation and censorship, but the Meta trial introduces a different question. Rather than focusing on what appears on social media, it asks whether the strategies employed to deliver that content deserve greater scrutiny.
There is no obvious point at which an engaging product becomes manipulative. Users will always have agency, and government intervention can easily become paternalistic if it treats every unhealthy habit as something that requires regulation. At the same time, personal responsibility does not necessarily absolve companies that intentionally design products around predictable weaknesses in human behavior.
Social media is undeniably becoming increasingly fine-tuned to give users what they want. More importantly, it is becoming increasingly efficient at removing the decisions that once accompanied using it. Short-form feeds do not require users to know what they want to watch, how long they want to stay, or when they have seen enough. The only requirement? Just one more swipe.
