Facebook and Instagram have become part of everyday life. We use them to keep in contact with friends, follow the news, promote businesses, share family moments and pass the time.
But a growing question is becoming harder to ignore: are we choosing how long we remain online, or are the platforms designed to prevent us from leaving?
The European Commission has preliminarily found Meta in breach of the European Union’s Digital Services Act over what regulators describe as the “addictive design” of Facebook and Instagram. The investigation focuses on features including infinite scrolling, automatic video playback, push notifications and highly personalised recommendation systems.
These are not obscure technical features hidden deep inside an app. They are the basic tools millions of people encounter every time they open Facebook or Instagram.
A video ends and another begins.
One post disappears and another immediately takes its place.
A notification appears and pulls the user back.
There is no natural stopping point, no final page and often no clear moment telling us that we have seen enough.
That may be exactly the problem.
The EU Says the Platforms Encourage Compulsive Use
The European Commission argues that Meta has not done enough to assess or reduce the risks that these features may pose to users’ physical and mental health, particularly children, teenagers and other vulnerable users.
Regulators say the combination of infinite scrolling, autoplay, notifications and personalised recommendations can place people on what they describe as “autopilot,” encouraging them to continue consuming content without making a conscious decision to do so.
The findings remain preliminary. Meta will have an opportunity to review the evidence and respond before the European Commission reaches a final decision.
However, the warning is serious. Should the findings be confirmed, Meta could face a financial penalty of up to six per cent of its worldwide annual revenue.
More importantly, the company could be forced to make significant changes to the way Facebook and Instagram operate.
Suggested changes include disabling autoplay and infinite scrolling by default, introducing more effective screen-time breaks and modifying recommendation systems so they are less focused on keeping users engaged for as long as possible.
Why Infinite Scrolling Matters
Before infinite scrolling became common, websites usually had an obvious ending. Users reached the bottom of a page and had to make an active decision to continue.
Social media removed that stopping point.
The feed can continue for as long as someone is prepared to move their thumb. The next post loads automatically, requiring almost no thought or effort from the user.
That small design decision can have an enormous effect.
A person may open an app intending to check one message and discover 30 minutes later that they are still scrolling. They may not remember most of what they saw, but the platform has successfully held their attention.
The issue is not that people have no personal responsibility. Adults can put their phones down, disable notifications and set limits.
The harder question is whether individual willpower is enough when users are competing against systems created by some of the world’s largest technology companies—systems constantly refined using enormous amounts of behavioural data.
A platform can learn which videos make someone pause, which stories make them angry, which faces hold their attention and what type of content keeps them online late at night.
The feed is not random.
It is personalised.
Attention Has Become a Product
Facebook and Instagram are free to use, but that does not mean they operate without a cost.
The platforms compete for attention because attention creates opportunities to display advertising, collect behavioural information and generate revenue.
The longer users remain active, the more advertisements they may see and the more information the platform can gather about their interests and behaviour.
This creates an uncomfortable conflict.
A healthier platform might encourage someone to close the app after they have caught up with friends or watched several videos.
A business built around continued engagement has an incentive to offer another post, another notification and another reason to remain online.
That does not prove every feature was created with the deliberate intention of harming users. It does, however, explain why regulators are asking whether engagement-driven business models have been allowed to go too far.
What About Children and Teenagers?
The potential effect on younger users is one of the biggest concerns raised by European regulators.
Children and teenagers may be especially vulnerable to social pressure, comparison, compulsive checking and content recommendation systems that repeatedly push similar material.
The European Commission says existing time-management and parental-control tools can be too easy to dismiss, override or avoid. Regulators also argue that some controls require parents to invest considerable time and technical knowledge before they become effective.
Meta disputes the idea that it has failed to act.
The company says the preliminary findings do not properly recognise measures already introduced to protect teenagers. Meta has pointed to its Teen Accounts, parental controls and options allowing parents to restrict nighttime access or set daily screen limits.
Meta says it shares the European Commission’s commitment to providing safer and more positive experiences for young users and intends to continue engaging with regulators.
Those protections matter, but the disagreement raises a larger question.
Should parents and teenagers be expected to find and activate safety controls, or should safer settings be built into the platforms by default?
Are Screen-Time Warnings Enough?
Most people have probably seen a notification telling them how much time they have spent using an app.
The warning appears.
The user dismisses it.
The scrolling continues.
A reminder may technically provide a choice, but regulators are questioning whether that choice is meaningful when every other feature is encouraging the person to stay.
An effective break would need to interrupt the cycle rather than simply produce another notification that can be removed with one tap.
The same applies to autoplay.
When the next video begins automatically, remaining online requires no decision. Leaving requires an active choice.
Turning autoplay off by default would reverse that arrangement. The user would need to choose to watch more rather than choose to escape.
It sounds like a minor distinction, but these small points of friction can change how people behave.
This Is Bigger Than Facebook and Instagram
The case against Meta is part of a much wider debate about technology, responsibility and mental health.
Facebook and Instagram are not the only platforms using endless feeds, automatic recommendations and attention-grabbing notifications.
These design methods have become standard across much of social media.
That is why the outcome of the European investigation could extend far beyond Meta.
Should regulators successfully force major design changes, other companies may face pressure to reconsider their own feeds, algorithms and notification systems.
It could also establish a simple principle: platforms should not be allowed to place engagement and profit above the wellbeing of their users.
Personal Responsibility Still Matters
There is also a danger in pretending that regulation can solve everything.
People still make choices about when they use their phones, which accounts they follow and how much personal information they share.
Families can create phone-free periods, disable unnecessary notifications and avoid devices during meals or before sleep.
But personal responsibility and corporate responsibility are not opposites.
Both can exist at the same time.
People can be encouraged to develop healthier habits while companies are required to stop exploiting predictable human behaviour.
The fact that someone can resist a design does not automatically make that design fair.
The Question Every User Should Ask
Social media has provided enormous benefits. It connects families, gives small businesses access to large audiences and allows important stories to reach people almost instantly.
The argument is not that Facebook and Instagram should disappear.
The argument is that people should be able to use these platforms without being manipulated into remaining longer than they intended.
The European Commission has not yet issued a final ruling, and Meta is entitled to present its defence.
Nevertheless, the investigation has exposed a question that every user should consider.
When we open an app, are we making a conscious choice about what we want to see and how long we want to remain there?
Or have the notifications, algorithms, autoplay videos and endless feeds already made that decision for us?
Are we using social media—or is it using us?