European regulators are moving to ban infinite scroll features on social media platforms, arguing the design pattern is deliberately addictive and harmful to users. If it passes, it would mark the first time a government has restricted specific user interface patterns as a matter of public health.
Infinite scroll is exactly what it sounds like: content that loads endlessly as you scroll down, with no natural stopping point. It's the default experience on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X, Facebook, and most other social media platforms. You open the app, start scrolling, and suddenly an hour has disappeared.
That's not an accident. Infinite scroll is a carefully engineered behavior manipulation technique designed to maximize time spent in app - the metric every social media company optimizes for because it drives advertising revenue.
The alternative is pagination: discrete pages of content with explicit "load more" or "next page" buttons. It's how websites worked before infinite scroll became ubiquitous. And it creates natural break points where users can make a conscious decision about whether to continue.
The European Union is betting that by changing the UI, they can change user behavior. Force platforms to implement pagination, and users will spend less time mindlessly scrolling, reducing the addictive qualities of social media.
But can regulation actually fix addictive design?
The social media companies will argue this is regulatory overreach. They'll say users prefer infinite scroll because it's more convenient. They'll point out that people can simply close the app if they want to stop scrolling. They'll claim this is nanny-state paternalism.
And they're not entirely wrong. Plenty of people use social media in healthy ways. Infinite scroll is undeniably more seamless than clicking through pages. And there's something philosophically uncomfortable about governments mandating UI patterns.
But the EU has precedent for this kind of intervention. They've regulated cookie consent, data portability, and default privacy settings. They've forced Apple to allow third-party app stores and Google to offer browser choices. The regulatory philosophy is that when companies engineer products to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, the government can step in.
