Social media companies or their users-which party needs to change to reduce online time?

Abstract

Currently, most prominent social media services can only be used in exchange for one's own data. The data business model has made several social media companies a great deal of money by allowing them to offer microtargeting opportunities to market to users [1, 2]. In order to harvest digital footprints and acquire fine-grained insights into user characteristics, social media companies have created highly immersive platforms prolonging the time their users spend online [3]. In this context, elements such as likes and endless scrolling have shaped the appearances of social media platforms [4, 5] and nudge user-behavior towards more engagement. This creates friction with other obligations and results in problems among a proportion of users [6, 7]. The solicitation of user behavior via product design, or ‘behavioral design’, is not unique to social media and plays a strong role in changing monetization tactics in video games as well [8]. While the nature of problematic social media use (PSMU) is still a matter of debate [9, 10], reduction in time spent on the platforms for those with PSMU is probably needed to reduce adverse physical, social and mental health consequences of a hyper-focused pattern of (leisure) time use. However, which factors are ‘really’ responsible for the excessive time spent on these platforms? Is it the personality structure of an individual [11]? Existing psychosocial vulnerabilities? Or is the data business model a major factor which, in turn, influences system design that optimizes for user-engagement and time on the platform? Behavior change is difficult [12], and interventions focusing solely upon behavior change targeting the end user will probably have a limited effect. To some degree, asking only users to change is akin to victim-blaming. Moreover, if resources and policy efforts are steered exclusively towards the end-user, some of the most effective and wide-reaching interventions—those at the product level—might never materialize. History is at risk of repeating itself here: for instance, the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries have long used narratives of user personal responsibility and free choice to avoid regulation that would constrain product availability and promotion, dodging legislative action that would more effectively reduce harms [13-15]. Digital media products have a unique opportunity: the same design decisions that now optimize for unhealthy engagement to feed advertising revenue could just as well stimulate taking healthy breaks and supporting user wellbeing. As the design of systems can steer behavior [16], we believe it is time to rethink social media platform design and the current business model of extracting attention from users. Of course, we believe in the power of psychoeducation, and informing users regarding the business models and design decisions of social media companies is an important intervention angle. However, if we are forced to choose to assign responsibility, and consequently a need to change, to either the social media companies or the users, we opt for the companies. C.M. reports no conflict of interest. However, for reasons of transparency C.M. mentions that he has received (to Ulm University and earlier University of Bonn) grants from agencies such as the German Research Foundation (DFG). C.M. has performed grant reviews for several agencies; has edited journal sections and articles; has given academic lectures in clinical or scientific venues or companies; and has generated books or book chapters for publishers of mental health texts. For some of these activities he received royalties, but never from gaming or social media companies. C.M. mentions that he is part of a discussion circle (Digitalität und Verantwortung: https://about.fb.com/de/news/h/gespraechskreis-digitalitaet-und-verantwortung/) debating ethical questions linked to social media, digitalization and society/democracy at Meta. In this context, he receives no salary for his activities. Finally, he mentions that he currently functions as an independent scientist on the scientific advisory board of the Nymphenburg group (Munich, Germany). This activity is financially compensated. Moreover, he is on the scientific advisory board of Applied Cognition (Redwood City, CA, USA), an activity which is also compensated. J.T. and A.J.v.R. report no conflicts of interest. None. Christian Montag: Conceptualization. Johannes Thrul: Conceptualization. Antonius J. van Rooij: Conceptualization.