Social media dependency is a central mechanism through which digital vulnerability takes shape, making it critical to understand for research, design, and policy. This study distinguishes between functional dependency (needs-based reliance) and psychological dependency (compulsive engagement) and investigates how these dimensions intersect. We surveyed 873 adult users across Europe, measuring both dependency forms alongside demographics, well-being, motivations, platform choice, and exposure to manipulative design features. Latent profile analysis and multinomial logistic regression revealed five distinct dependency profiles: functional use, low-dependency pragmatic use, high-dependency social use, moderate-dependency hedonic use, and very high-dependency multi-motivated use. These findings show dependency is not uniform but layered and dynamic, shifting with users’ circumstances and socio-technical contexts. By situating dependency within both individual and design-related factors, the study advances theoretical debates on digital vulnerability and offers a profiles-based lens that helps inform the design of more autonomy-supportive social media platforms.

Scholars and policymakers are increasingly interested in designing interventions to mitigate harms associated to manipulative designs - so-called ''dark patterns''. However, the experiences of those who are more likely to suffer harms - i.e. users in positions of vulnerability - remain understudied. This work presents an interview study to understand how users in situations of vulnerability perceive and resist manipulative designs (N=19). The findings explain how participants normalised the presence of manipulative designs, how socio-technical aspects mediate interactions with these designs, and their resistance strategies. Lastly, this paper discusses the relationship between socio-digital inequalities and vulnerability to manipulative designs, providing directions for further research to tackle vulnerability by design.

Manipulative and deceptive design practices are ubiquitous, impacting technology users in various ways across several domains. Certain groups are likely more susceptible to these impacts but have not received sufficient attention yet. In this paper, we seek to characterize one such understudied group, describing teenagers’ experience of manipulative design. We conducted semi-structured interviews with six teenagers between 15 and 17 years old, to understand their daily interactions with manipulative designs in three contexts: social networks, video games, and e-commerce. Using reflexive thematic analysis, our findings describe how risk is a shared experience for teenagers, and interrogate how teenagers’ personal and social context shape their experience of risk. We relate our findings to existing knowledge about how the general population is impacted by manipulative design practices and consider opportunities to further understand and support the experiences of teenagers and other vulnerable groups.

Manipulative designs — i.e., dark patterns — have pervaded online interactions in most sectors from e-commerce to social media, banking, and healthcare. Understanding how individuals experience and cope with online manipulation is essential to support evolved design practices and regulatory measures. Yet studies on populations who may be more vulnerable to online manipulation are scarce. Through a series of “magic machines” workshops, we investigated the experiences of older adults (N=31) with online manipulation, their needs, and the strategies they imagine to resist manipulative practices. Our results show that participants tend to attribute manipulation to an “unknown” person and do not distinguish platforms from content. Through their machines, they expressed four primary needs to resist manipulation: knowledge, awareness, right to sanctuary, and control. Our study contributes insights into older adults’ experiences with online manipulation and brings design challenges for effective countermeasures to manipulation that address the needs of all users.

• A multidisciplinary mapping of the micro, meso, and macro factors of vulnerability to dark patterns. • A subsequent critical reflection on the feasibility of the risk assessment proposed in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). • Multidisciplinary suggestions to increase resilience towards digital manipulative designs. In the last few years, there have been growing concerns about the far-reaching influence that digital architectures may exert on individuals and societies. A specific type of digital manipulation is often engineered into the interfaces of digital services through the use of so-called dark patterns, that cause manifold harms against which nobody seems to be immune. However, many areas of law rely on a traditional class-based view according to which certain groups are inherently more vulnerable than others, such as children. Although the undue influence exerted by dark patterns on online decisions can befall anybody, empirical studies show that there are actually certain factors that aggravate the vulnerability of some people by making them more likely to incur in certain manipulation risks engineered in digital services and less resilient to the related harms. But digital vulnerability does not overlap with traditionally protected groups and depends on multifaceted factors. This article contributes to the ongoing discussions on these topics by offering (i) a multidisciplinary mapping of the micro, meso, and macro factors of vulnerability to dark patterns; (ii) a subsequent critical reflection on the feasibility of the risk assessment proposed in three selected EU legal frameworks: the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, and the Artificial Intelligence Act; (iii) and multidisciplinary suggestions to increase resilience towards manipulative designs online.

HCI researchers are increasingly concerned about the prevalence of manipulative design strategies in user interfaces, commonly referred to as “dark patterns”. The line between manipulation and persuasion strategies is often blurred, leading to legal and ethical concerns. This paper examines the tension between persuasive UX practices and manipulative designs. UX/UI design professionals (n=22), split into eight focus groups, conducted design activities on two fictitious scenarios. We qualitatively analysed their discussions regarding strategies for influencing user behaviours and their underlying reasoning. Our findings reveal a combination of classical UI design strategies like sticky interfaces and incentives as their most common practice to influence user behaviour. We also unveil that trust, transparency, and user autonomy act as guiding principles for the professionals in assessing their ideas. However, a thorough approach is missing; despite a general user-first attitude, they feel constrained by contextual factors. We explain how the tensions between principles and context contribute to manipulative designs online.