TikTok and young people: profitability and the factory of unhappiness

The algorithmic factory of vulnerability

The parliamentary report describes TikTok as an “algorithmic machine” designed to capture users' attention and trap them in extreme spirals of content. The feed's architecture is based on a simple principle: the longer a piece of content is viewed, the more likely it is to be recommended to other users. This mechanism transforms attention span into an indicator of profitability, to the detriment of the quality or harmfulness of the content.

In just a few minutes, a teenager can go from a harmless video to scarification tutorials, promotion of anorexia (#SkinnyTok) and suicidal ideation. Amnesty International has shown that, within the first 12 minutes, more than half of the content recommended to a “depressive profile” related to anxiety, self-harm or suicide. The algorithm does not just reflect preferences. It also creates an environment that accentuates psychological vulnerability.

From the perspective of information and communication science, a discipline that studies the way in which technology and media outlets structure our social practices and representations, this process illustrates a “factory of communication vulnerabilities”. In other words, TikTok's technical architecture not only distributes content, it also shapes the very conditions under which said content is received and used.

The application is designed to exploit the attention economy, based on immediate gratification and the logic of random rewards. As Ulrich Beck points out in his theory of “risk society”, technologies produce the dangers they claim to control. TikTok illustrates this paradox by transforming a space for entertainment into a systematic danger zone.

In this sense, the toxic aspects of the platform described in the report are not an accidental drift, but a structural consequence of its business model. The algorithm is optimised to maximise time spent on the application and automatically favours the most radical or disturbing content, as this is what attracts the most attention.

The central issue: a lack of transparency around the algorithm

One of the committee's major findings was regarding the lack of transparency around TikTok's algorithm. Despite more than seven hours of hearings with representatives of the platform, Members of the National Assembly highlighted that its workings remained elusive: no access to raw data, impossible to verify the criteria used to recommend content, and statements limited to general and often contradictory information. In other words, the technical core of the application’s algorithm remains a black box beyond our understanding.

This lack of transparency is no mere technical detail, as it directly affects our ability to protect minors. If we do not know precisely what signals (watch time, likes, pauses, interactions) trigger the recommendation of a piece of content, it becomes impossible to understand why vulnerable teenagers are primarily exposed to videos about anorexia, suicide or self-harm. The report describes this lack of transparency as a “major obstacle to regulation”.

This situation illustrates the notion of algorithmic governance. These are systems which largely escape public understanding, and yet they structure our information environments. The asymmetry between the power of these platforms and the weakness of regulatory institutions generates what can be described as systemic communication vulnerability.

The report stresses the need for European tools to audit algorithms, as well as the importance of closer cooperation between researchers, regulatory authorities and actors in civil society. The challenge is not just to force TikTok to be more transparent, but to create the conditions for collective understanding of these technological mechanisms. This is the price to pay if we wish to effectively protect minors and assert credible digital sovereignty in Europe.

The economics of unhappiness

The parliamentary report also stresses that TikTok’s toxic aspects are neither accidental nor the result of malicious intent, but stem from its business model, a commercial logic in which unhappiness is profitable.

This mechanism illustrates what researchers call the “attention economy”. On TikTok, watch time becomes the central resource. The longer teenagers stay on the application, the more data is acquired for targeted advertising and increasing the financial value of the platform. Negative emotions (fear, shock, morbid fascination) often generate greater retention than positive content. Algorithmic spirals are therefore not mere accidents, but the direct consequence of economic optimisation.

This dynamic is part of surveillance capitalism, in which the personal experience of individuals is extracted, analysed and transformed into market value. In the case of TikTok, the vulnerable behaviour of minors (hesitation, repeated clicks, prolonged viewing of sensitive content) becomes monetisable data.

It is not just a question of protecting young people from toxic content, but understanding that the platform has an interest in keeping this content in circulation. The problem is therefore structural. TikTok is not just a social network gone awry, it is also an industry that thrives on capturing people's misery.

Beyond TikTok

Ultimately, the TikTok report acts as a mirror magnifying changes taking place in our digital environments. It is not just a question of pointing out the dangers of the application. It is also about challenging the economic and algorithmic logics that now shape how young people are socialised.

The issue is not about banning a social network, but rather about designing a system of regulation capable of integrating the complexity of uses, the diversity of audiences and the need for protection. The notion of communication security is key here, in that it invites us to think together about mental health, algorithmic governance, digital sovereignty and responsible innovation.

TikTok is not an exception, but a symptom of a model that urgently needs to be reformed. The future of regulation is not only about this platform alone. It is also a matter of whether European societies are able to redefine the rules of digital technology in line with the generational challenges involved.