Following the Meta case in the USA, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube were sued in Portugal this time. Ricardo Lafuente, President of Portuguese digital rights group D3, said that the basis of the case is the platforms' designs that make users addicted.
Lafuente answered the questions of Serdar Korucu from CNN Türk. Stating that the common feature of major social media platforms is "addiction", Lafuente argued that companies use manipulative methods to attract users' attention and keep them on the platforms for longer.
"They use addictive design techniques. That is, they manipulate people to attract their attention and keep them in the application. Thus, they try to get more advertising. These are unfair, deceptive techniques. They take away the individual decisions of both us adults and our children. Our main goal is to set a legal precedent in Europe. With this case, we will make the platforms pay compensation to the affected people and eventually deter these companies from using deceptive tactics and establish mechanisms against this. This is basically our goal."
Lafuente said that internal documents revealed in the US cases and employees' warnings about the harms of the platforms on children paved the way for new litigation processes. Claiming that companies know the addictive features of social media and encourage them, Lafuente said:
"No one doubts this anymore. We know this through whistleblowers and internal company documents that have emerged. And we hope that these documents will spark other lawsuits."
Lafuente said the "dark design patterns" used on social media platforms affect users' preferences. Stating that these methods make it difficult for the person to make his own decision, Lafuente cited infinite scrolling and autoplay features as examples.
"These patterns are the interface design tactics we see in virtual media. This directs the user in the way the virtual media company wants, not the user himself."
Lafuente stated that the autoplay feature on YouTube is an example of this system, and stated that algorithmic recommendations direct users to content they did not initially plan to watch.
"Algorithmic recommendations also direct people to content they did not choose to look at. It looks like the will is yours, but it is not. It creates a false will."
Citing the algorithm choices on Instagram as an example, Lafuente said that users must make a new selection at each login to disable the algorithmic system, which is not preferred in practice.
Lafuente compared the designs of social media platforms that shape user behavior to the methods used in slot machines. Arguing that platforms manipulate the will of users, Lafuente said that social media should be strictly controlled like the gambling industry.
"Slot machines also manipulate our will to analyze the situation and make decisions based on it. You see this in casinos. You can't get out of it and want to keep playing, even if it's against your own interests. Because that's what they're designed for."
Lafuente suggested that social media companies have created a similar control mechanism to keep users on the platforms.
"Your will is taken away from you, even if you are destroying yourself... This is why it is said "The house always wins" about casinos. Because the institution that runs the casino controls the environment. The situation is the same in virtual media platforms. All your control is in their hands."
Lafuente emphasized that social media platforms should not be allowed to set their own rules.
"That's why casinos are strictly regulated. Virtual media platforms should also be regulated like gambling. Platforms alone should not be allowed to determine the rules. Because this creates a danger for everyone."
Stating that social media notifications on phones distract users, Lafuente said that it is wrong to see platforms only as channels where news and developments are followed.
"Virtual media is shown as if it is a medium where we only follow news and developments, but this is not true. This is an illusion. The purpose of virtual media is clear. To capture our will."
Lafuente argued that companies aim to increase their profits by keeping users on platforms longer and pointed out the role of notifications:
"The desire of virtual media companies is to lock people into these platforms and increase their profits. This is why those notifications keep coming unless they are removed by a legal obligation."
Lafuente criticized the fact that the responsibility for children's social media use is placed solely on families. Stating that parents have to fight with large teams working to attract children's attention, Lafuente said that this situation is not fair.
"Parents are up against an army of highly paid designers, technologists and psychologists whose sole purpose is to capture children's attention."
Stating that parents have difficulty in this struggle due to their busy working lives and daily responsibilities, Lafuente argued that the responsibilities of the companies are ignored.
"It's unfair to expect a parent to use a monitoring app or to participate in digital literacy programs. In this way, companies' responsibility is overlooked. When the blame is placed on parents, companies acquit themselves."
Lafuente said it was unacceptable for social media companies to put more responsibility on families for the protection of children.
"Companies with enormous resources are attacking very strongly, and parents alone have no chance of winning this fight. And this fight is not just one time. It happens every day in every home with children."
Lafuente also drew attention to sexual abuse networks that he said were spread through Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp under the umbrella of Meta. Stating that groups targeting children operate on social media platforms, Lafuente also cited Roblox as an example.
"In recent years, we have seen sexual abuse networks spread through virtual media. Groups trying to trap children operate almost openly."
Arguing that Roblox did not have adequate protection mechanisms for a long time even though it was a platform for children, Lafuente said that some changes took place after the lawsuits.
"Although it is a platform designed for children, until recently there was no protection mechanism. It did not have a setting that said 'I do not want people I do not know to contact my child'. For a long time, children remained defenseless. The situation changed when lawsuits were filed against Roblox. At this stage, you see the impact of the courts."
Lafuente argued that social media addiction cannot be solved only by age limits for children. He said that the main target should be designs that affect user behavior and the companies that develop them.
"This should be clear by now. Our preferred approach is to get to the root of the problem. The problem is not children, adults or the elderly. It is the companies that created this situation."
Stating that age verification systems may allow companies to continue using their addictive designs, Lafuente stated that the solution is to change the way the platforms work.
"Because it means they can continue to engage in addictive practices, i.e. shady designs like infinite scrolling or autoplay. These things don't just affect kids..."
Lafuente compared the fight against problems arising from social media use to traffic safety measures.
"If there are many fatal accidents on a particular street in a city, the solution is not to close that road to people. You create deterrents. You put speed breakers that slow down the vehicles. You install traffic lights. That's exactly what we're advocating here. We need to stop the companies."
Lafuente said that the negative effects of social media use should not be seen as a personal failure of the users. Arguing that the designs developed by companies have an impact on user behavior, Lafuente especially opposed blaming parents.
"If you feel bad because you look at your phone too much and get depressed because you lose control at night, it's not your fault. If your child can't concentrate and has problems at school, it's neither the parents' nor the children's fault."
D3 President called for international solidarity, arguing that the responsibility lies with the companies.
"There is a group that is guilty, and that is the companies. I think there is a need for solidarity all over the world because we are all struggling with the same problem."
