The team at SABF 2026 has been thinking for a while about how some of the most relevant conversations of our time get lost by becoming part of everyday life. This time, we decided to focus on something that, one way or another, affects all of us: social media, its design, and the unintended effects it can have on our lives.
The digital age brought with it an unprecedented transformation in almost every aspect of human life. Work, education, economies, and interpersonal relationships were all revolutionized by the widespread adoption of the internet and mobile devices. But perhaps the greatest impact occurred in our leisure time and in our relationship with ourselves.
Social media built a parallel world where the external gaze dictates our worth. But in an environment that rewards perfection, the genuine gets left behind; and, in that gap, anxiety and insecurity emerge. While this might seem like a purely cultural phenomenon, it also has a neurological dimension: every notification releases dopamine, and the brain learns to ask for more.
Platforms are well aware of this. Infinite scroll, autoplay, short-form videos, and the promise of upcoming rewards are all part of product engineering, grounded in behavioral psychology and neuroscience. The goal is to maximize screen time, turn it into data, data into advertising, and advertising into profit. Most of us can admit, even if it's uncomfortable, that we've fallen victim to this.
In March 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately designing addictive products that caused harm to a young user, in what was the first trial of its kind to reach a verdict in the United States. The jury determined that both companies were negligent and ordered them to pay a total of six million dollars, three million of which correspond to punitive damages.
It's tempting to read this as a sign that something is changing. And maybe it is. But it's also worth asking what would actually happen if that were the case. Would regulating algorithms and eliminating infinite scroll be enough? We're not so sure. A society accustomed to these mechanisms doesn't change overnight just because the rules do; even if the "Gilded Cage" opens, its shine still draws us in.
And this is where the uncomfortable questions arise: do we actually want these regulations to exist? And even if we do, are we willing to give up the comfort and stimulation these platforms provide? We find ourselves facing a paradoxical situation, with no clear solutions. Do we choose to delegate regulation to the State, risking the dismantling of systems we've come to depend on? Or is it still possible to take on our own role as responsible for our liberation? We don't have the answers, but we believe the challenge of the years ahead is finding a fair balance of responsibilities between both sides.
Bibliography
Addictive design and behavioral neuroscience:
https://www.annalembke.com/dopamine-nation
Trial against Meta and YouTube in Los Angeles: https://cactus24.com.ve/2026/03/25/meta-debera-indemnizar-a-una-joven-adicta-a-instagram/
Verdict details and punitive damages: https://www.eldiario.net/portal/2026/03/26/jurado-dictamina-que-meta-debera-indemnizar-a-joven-adicta-a-instagram/
