Recently, Meta agreed to a settlement of up to $18 billion in the US over allegations related to the addictive nature and harmful effects of Instagram and Facebook on young users. This raises an important question: why do we think about digital addiction mainly as a problem for children? Turning 18 does not suddenly make someone impervious to addiction. We can see the influence of recommendation algorithms in something as simple as Instagram Reels. If a friend of mine watches a particular reel, I may start seeing the same or similar reel on my feed shortly afterwards. When this happens repeatedly among people of a similar age, it creates a shared digital environment where an entire age group can be exposed to similar trends, narratives and content. For adults, this can take different forms, from endless entertainment to highly personalized content such as horoscope and astrology reels. The CJP protests are another interesting example. The CJP protests and student protests were not necessarily the same thing, but through social media, the two became increasingly associated and, in some cases, were treated as though they were one movement. This shows how algorithmic amplification can blur distinctions and shape how people perceive an event.
No age group is impervious
We should consider an age-based digital safety framework or something similar. I haven't given much thought yet to how exactly this could be implemented, but I think the conversation needs to start. Different age groups may require different kinds of safeguards, rather than treating 18 as the point where digital protection ends. Senior citizens, in particular, are often missing from this conversation, despite being susceptible to digital addiction and facing additional risks such as misinformation, scams and manipulative recommendations. No age group is impervious to addiction, so no age group should be overlooked in digital governance. Addiction does not have an age limit. Why should digital safety policies?