The Dark Side of Infinite Scrolling Affecting Young People: Why Can't We Quit TikTok? The Dangers of "Passive Scrolling"

The Dark Side of Infinite Scrolling Affecting Young People: Why Can't We Quit TikTok? The Dangers of "Passive Scrolling"

In the morning, even after waking up, my head feels heavy. I can't maintain concentration during class. Yet at night, I can't put down my smartphone.


The "endless scroll" is no longer just a habit of a few children. Short videos and recommendation feeds continuously offer the next stimulus without a moment's pause. Fingers move on their own, the sense of time melts away, and before you know it, it's midnight. In Europe, scrutiny over TikTok's design is intensifying, and in the U.S., major platforms are being challenged in court over whether they have harmed young people's health. The political discourse around smartphone regulation in schools stems from the intuition that "this is not just a matter of personal will."


1) How much are they watching in the first place?

The numbers are straightforward. A German survey (JIM) reports that the average screen time for 12-19-year-olds is about 4 hours a day. Another survey (DAK Health Insurance × UKE) indicates that 10-17-year-olds spend about 2.5 hours on social media on weekdays.

 
The more this time increases, the more something in life gets cut out: exercise, hobbies, conversations with family, and sleep. Researchers call this the "displacement effect," where time spent on social media pushes out "other means of recovery."


2) The issue is "how" rather than "how long" — passive scrolling is dangerous

Parents most want to know "how many hours a day is dangerous." However, researchers reject a simple "time schedule" approach.


The point is whether the use is passive or active. Just watching, just letting it flow — this "passive scrolling" tends to have more negative associations. Conversely, using the same amount of time for learning, creating, or interacting with friends, with purpose and agency, makes a difference.


What's more important is whether the individual desires it. Even if it's just three hours, if the person feels, "I really want to do something else but can't stop," those three hours weigh heavily. On the other hand, if it's tied to work or creation and the person can control it, it can't simply be deemed bad.


3) What happens: Sleep deprivation, self-comparison, mental fluctuations

The article lists various impacts, including sleep deprivation, self-doubt, and cyberbullying. The JIM survey shows a certain number of people feel "it's hard in the morning because I keep looking at my smartphone at night."

 
Mentally, increased social media use and "problematic use (close to addiction)" are potentially linked to sleep issues, depression, eating disorders, and self-harm. However, the tricky part here is the intertwining of causality. Is it "because I'm feeling down, I scroll more," or "because I scroll more, I feel down"? Research shows "associations" but can't jump to a one-way conclusion.


4) Those most affected are "some vulnerable groups" — hence easily overlooked

It's crucial to note that negative effects don't "fall on everyone with the same intensity." Researchers say that even if effects are statistically visible, the effect size is small, and it tends to skew towards children already burdened with anxiety or depression, children struggling with self-image (especially those prone to comparison), and victims of bullying.

 
Cyberbullying never "ends at school." It follows you 24/7, no matter where you are. That's why the wounds run deep.


And what's tricky from a field perspective is that the more troubled children sometimes "hide it well." It doesn't surface until grades or life fall apart. To those around them, it looks like they're "just using it normally." Thus, discussions often deviate from the "majority's experience."


5) What is "addiction": Wanting to quit but can't, life becomes constrained

The word addiction is strong. However, the guideline here is surprisingly simple.
The person wants to quit but can't.
Inability to quit constrains life, such as academics, sleep, and relationships.


Once in this state, advice to simply reduce time isn't enough. Both design (platform) and environment (home, school) are involved.

In fact, reports indicate that about 1 in 4 of those aged 10-17 are judged to use social media "problematically," with a few percent considered equivalent to addiction (as introduced in the article).

Dismissing it as a "minority" involves a classroom-sized number of people.


6) Young people are not unaware — rather, they "know but can't stop"

Interestingly, the individuals involved are surprisingly critical of themselves. Surveys show that a majority of young people feel they "end up using it longer than expected." Furthermore, they also feel that "time without a smartphone is comfortable."

 
In other words, the enemy is not the smartphone. The enemy is a "structure that can't be overcome by one's will alone."


ZDF also organizes mechanisms like algorithm recommendations, "dark patterns (designs that prolong use)," and doomscrolling, warning that "children are more susceptible due to their brain development stages."


7) Reactions on social media: Empathy, anger, and rebuttal in a three-way battle

This topic is combustible because everyone has their "own experience." In reality, reactions on social media and forums are divided into three major categories.

 


A: Empathy "I get it, time melts away"
The typical voice is "I intended to spend 10 minutes, but before I knew it, 2 hours had passed." On Reddit, discussions repeatedly mention how short bursts of time accumulate into significant periods.


B: Criticism of design "The problem is not willpower, but the system"
Criticism is strong against designs aimed at "maximizing stay time," such as "infinite feeds," "autoplay," and "recommendations." AlgorithmWatch also points out that recommendation systems are tied to ad revenue, promoting long stays, and emphasizes the complexity that can't be resolved by simply debating the pros and cons of age bans.


C: Rebuttal to regulation "The data is outdated/it leads to increased surveillance"
Regarding SNS regulation and age verification, doubts arise such as "the research is based on outdated platforms" and "ID verification becomes an excuse for surveillance." On the same Reddit thread, there are comments pointing out that you can't discuss the current algorithm environment with old data, and concerns about the side effects of age verification.


This three-way battle has merit in all arguments. That's why the debate doesn't end. But while the endless debate continues, today someone is sacrificing sleep, someone is falling into the hell of comparison, and someone is losing an escape from bullying.


8) So, what should we do? — "Ban" or "design change," and beyond

It's practical to consider measures in three major layers.


① Home: More "observation" and "conversation design" than rules
Suddenly taking it away leads to conflict. What's important is to calmly talk during times when it's not in use, show interest in the world the child is seeing, and set boundaries (before bedtime, during meals, etc.). The advice from experts introduced by ZDF also focuses on a stance of "keeping an eye" rather than surveillance.


② School: Rules to protect concentration and relationships without making smartphones the "enemy"
Whether to completely ban smartphones can vary by region and school culture. However, it's necessary to design rules that protect concentration during classes and interpersonal relationships during breaks. Some children are distracted just by the presence of a smartphone. Decisions should be made by observing "whose learning is being compromised."


③ Platform/Policy: "Stimulus design restraint" according to age
From the scientific community, there are proposals to curb "features that easily induce addiction" for minors. For example, restrictions on push notifications, infinite scrolling, and personalized ads. Leopoldina's recommendations specifically mention age-appropriate design (handling of algorithms, ads, restraint of addictive features) and restrictions on smartphone use in schools.


Simply asking children for self-control isn't a fair fight. The opponent is the very essence of an optimized attention economy.


9) Conclusion: Scrolling is not "evil." But it can't be ignored either.

For young people, social media is a place to belong and a fitting room. It's a place to test identities, find peers, and share difficult-to-discuss worries. This can indeed be a relief.

 
On the other hand, the more one sinks into passivity, the more sleep, self-image, and mental recovery are gradually eroded. And this tends to be more severe for children who are already more vulnerable.


Therefore, what's needed is neither "quit social media" nor "let them do as they please."
With "unquittable design" as a premise, families, schools, and platforms each need to create an environment that makes it easier to quit.
We are entering an era where endless scrolling requires endless countermeasures.


Source URL

Related Articles