Introduction
"Let that sink in," Elon Musk posted after acquiring Twitter for $42 billion, sharing a photo of himself carrying a bathroom sink into headquarters with a goofy grin (here on X). Under his leadership as a self-proclaimed free speech advocate, political polarization on social media has surged. This trend of deregulating social media platforms took another turn after Trump's re-election, placing Musk in the administration (his announcement on this) and bringing his deregulation agenda into the Oval Office. Other tech leaders, notably Mark Zuckerberg, have followed suit, announcing major policy shifts that will reshape platform interfaces and cultures (Zuck's announcement).
Stepping back, these changes unfold in a critical election year – 2024 – where over four billion people across 64 countries, including the EU, are set to vote (Ewe, 2023, Reece, 2024). Meanwhile, political polarization in developed nations has intensified for decades (McCoy et al., 2022), with the World Economic Forum ranking it as the third-largest global risk for 2024, right after mis- and disinformation (WEF, 2024). In the U.S., a decade of deepening division has made its impact especially clear in this election cycle (Kleinfeld, 2023).
McCoy & Press (2022) highlight that rising political polarization has led to democratic decline in half of the affected democracies since 1950. Social media platforms like X amplify this divide, making their design – interfaces, algorithms, and interaction patterns – crucial in shaping public discourse. This raises questions about responsibility and the role of designers in mitigating polarization.
Our research examines how X’s interface contributes to political polarization and explores how speculative design can disrupt these patterns to reshape political content consumption. To do so, we distinguish interface-driven influences from broader
X's Engage-mania
What is engagement and what about its time consuming aspect?
Boosting user engagement is the lifeblood of platforms like X. Since most of these services are free to use and rely on ad revenue, their business models hinge on maximizing user and content visibility. The goal is to keep you glued to the app for as long as possible (Center for Humane Technology, 2021). In essence, your attention becomes the currency these companies thrive on. A world where your time, focus, and mental energy are commodified to power the revenue engine of social networking giants (Burkeman, 2019).
How is engagement-centric design implemented?
Engagement-centric design works on multiple levels, but at its core, it’s about interaction. Let’s break it down into three key strategies. First, platforms lean heavily on simple interactions – think likes and comments – which are designed to keep you coming back for more (Stroud, Muddiman & Scacco, 2013). Then, there’s the all-important notification system. A 2023 study (Bell et al., 2023) found that users who received notifications were 3.5 times more likely to open the app within the next hour, compared to those who didn’t. So your phone’s constant buzzing is definitely by design. Finally, the never-ending scroll – an infinite feed that subtly increases the time you spend on the platform – is another tactic. It’s especially relevant now, with short video formats taking over the social media world (Koç, 2023).
What are the effects of these design patterns on polarization?
The link between high engagement and political polarization in online discussions is largely driven by the amount of time spent on the platform. Users who spend more time on X are more exposed to radical, polarized, and hateful content (National Institute of Justice, 2023). They interact more with like-minded peers, creating feedback loops that reinforce their views – known as
By unraveling the hidden mechanisms behind X’s interface and exploring speculative, design-driven interventions, we aim to unmask how thoughtful design can challenge polarization and reshape the way we engage with content online.
Now let’s look at these aforementioned features of X and disrupt the concrete interface design decisions that ultimately lead to an increased engagement with the platform.
To what extent does X's interface increase political polarization and
how can we unmask and disrupt these interaction patterns by design?
Interacting with Posts
In this section, we disrupt the familiar interface patterns of X by using a combination of interface design and speculative design. Our approach doesn’t seek to completely reinvent the wheel but instead plays with the existing elements and logic of the platform. By drawing on X’s own design features, such as colors and interactive patterns, we intend to critique the current user experience. This is done by introducing friction – an intentional slowdown in the interface – that challenges the rapid-fire, mindless engagement that X has cultivated. Through these small, strategic disruptions, we hope to "beat X at its own game," using the platform's own design elements to shift user behavior and prompt a more thoughtful, self-aware interaction.
Microanimations: Beat them at their own Game
We tap the cute little heart icon, and before it turns red, it pulses and bursts into tiny sparkles. A small, satisfying reward – just enough to nudge us into liking more posts.
“This small action makes the experience more rewarding. It encourages users to interact with content,” Soegaard (2024) states. Dan Saffer (2013, p. 100) agrees: “Interesting animations invite interaction” – but only when they follow five key principles: fast, smooth, natural, simple, and purposeful (2013, p. 99).
Speculation
On the mobile screen, on the right-hand side, you can see how a like-animation could also look like. Bringing up questions: what if the animation upon interaction is not enjoyable? What if it breaks with these rules? To counter the constant drive for engagement, we flip the interaction dynamic – what if every user action is met with a reaction that demands attention? Each time a user interacts with content, it adds a moment of pause, forcing them to wait just a fraction of a second before diving back into the endless scroll. This small delay disrupts the flow, making them reconsider their actions – whether it’s liking a post or sharing an opinion. Instead of automatic, mindless responses, users are prompted to reflect on whether their engagement is intentional or simply the result of conditioned behavior. In a way, the system "screams back" at them, asking: Do you really want to interact, or have you just become numb to the endless feed?
Diverse Reactions: Be that emoji
Once more we take a look at the like button. At first glance, it might seem that social media platforms, like X, prominently display positive reactions to only discourage hate speech. However, it becomes evident that these platforms function in so-called „asymmetric feedback environments“ (Konovalova, 2023), where only positive reactions are counted and displayed, while there is no straightforward way to show or measure disapproval in forms of reactions. This imbalance in feedback has the consequence of extreme views and does not reflect a diverse atmospheric picture. As a result, it has a polarizing effect on content, as "social media platforms influence the expression of extreme opinions" (Konovalova, 2023).
Speculation
Our design, illustrated on the right, introduces a feature that requires users to share personalized feedback through facial expressions, similar to emojis.
The idea behind it is to disrupt the comfort of anonymity that fuels negative online behaviors like trolling and mindless commenting. By encouraging users to engage with their real facial expressions, it forces a level of self-awareness and reflection that isn’t present when remaining anonymous. This disruption of anonymity directly challenges the behaviors and attitudes that thrive in the safety of the digital mask. Users would be forced to confront themselves before interacting, making the engagement more deliberate. The feature would only activate when a face is recognized, which would help ensure it isn't misused, although it may still be subverted in some cases. However, this isn't meant to be a perfect solution, it’s more of a critique and provocation aimed at the like feature designed by X.
Moreover, this design creates friction in the way users interact with content. It makes the comment process more intentional, potentially encouraging a more responsible and thoughtful way of engaging. On a broader scale, this approach could help address polarization in two ways. First, by reducing the echo chamber effect. Kosheleva & Kreinovich (2021) argue that a more nuanced feedback system, like a “fuzzy” Like button, helps diminish extreme viewpoints by capturing varying degrees of agreement. Second, by introducing cognitive friction—requiring users to pause, think, and reflect on their interactions—this design slows down mindless scrolling and engages users more consciously with the content they consume (Ruiz, Molina León & Heuer, 2024).
Reposting: Level up!
Another problem with the way of getting engaged too easily, is the simplicity to repost content, which can lead to virality and an enormous speed of spreading information, as well as disinformation and fake news. This has been a major challenge, especially throughout the COVID-pandemic. A study, published 2021 on PMC (Bermes) examines how information overload and fake news sharing are connected. Looking at X’s interface design it becomes quickly visible that users are only two taps away from reposting content in their feed.
Speculation
As depicted in the feed-scrolling animation, we took inspiration from X’s reward systems. The grotesque reality of earning money by spreading polarizing content could instead be reimagined as an attempt to depolarize. Here, our idea is limiting the number of sharing options to make the repost feature more deliberate. It’s essentially a gamified approach to content consumption inspired from video games when the player has limited resources like “Life”, “Energy” or “Items” play an inventory. If you have only two repost cards left in your wallet, you’ll probably think more carefully about which content is worth using them on. And again, this system isn’t a one-size-fits-all fix, it’s a direct challenge to the monetized digital landscape, designed to shake things up. By adding friction, it pushes users to think twice before reposting, ensuring they actually read and assess content instead of blindly sharing.
Ultimately, this satirical homage to X’s payment system could, in theory, extend to likes and comments, potentially fostering more deliberate and thoughtful engagement.
Commenting: Who likes silence, anyway?
Unlike platforms like Instagram or Facebook, where likes take center stage, X makes replies the main form of interaction. Even discussion-focused apps like Threads or Reddit follow the "likes-first" model. By prioritizing comments, X pushes users to share their opinions, making this feature a key part of the experience. However, this design can fuel political polarization: extreme or provocative comments often gain the most traction, driving engagement and amplifying radical views (Falkenberg, 2024). Additionally, comments are stored indefinitely, allowing ongoing interactions, even when the political context shifts (Wang, 2024).
Speculation
How can we redesign the comment section to introduce friction that fosters more varied interactions? The way comments are stored under a post resembles an archive, with the most prominent content – often the most controversial – naturally pushed to the top. Emotional outbursts and personal attacks are set in stone here permanently. Hate speech, as a result, becomes another major factor contributing to polarization on X which is also one of the problem spaces we determined.
Here, however, we focus on comments as reactions. Looking back at this comment archive, why not create a space more connected to reality by turning comments into a live discussion format?
If you check out the mobile screen animation, you'll notice that instead of the usual comment section, there's a new way to share your opinion on a post. If you are familiar with the Social Media App “Clubhouse”, you will see a similar principle here. As commenting in social media, is a metaphor for a discussion in real life, but stems from a time, when the internet was providing mostly textual content, we can rethink this in nowadays technological context: In a world of video, live streaming and constant connection, users can join a digital room for live video meetings, creating a setting where specific phrases cannot be isolated and used to frame or misrepresent conversations. Our goal is to foster a more chaotic discussion culture on X, one that dampens engagement while introducing a richer, more vibrant dynamic to the platform’s beloved comment section. Will there even be breakout rooms to imitate the iconic threaded structure of X? Or could you just open a room, when you disagree with a specific side note in that discussion?
Viewing Limit: 98, 99 and “Poof”!
Going viral on the Internet is as unpredictable as winning the lottery with your very first ticket. Yet, some posts manage to skyrocket overnight, reaching hundreds of thousands of users in a remarkably short time. The statement or image you just shared suddenly becomes the talk of the town. However, this surge in visibility can come with its downsides, especially when viral content spreads misinformation or fake news, amplifying the potential for harm on a massive scale. Unfortunately, this happens quite a lot on X, which makes the platform the biggest source of fake news and disinformation. (Suciu, 2023)
Speculation
If you look at the mobile screen on the right, you'll notice the feed content is no longer visible – because the view limit has already been reached. When the number of, for instance, 100 views is reached, the post becomes blurry, rendering it unreadable, and it can no longer be retweeted. This approach would act as a speed bump in the rapid dissemination of content, encouraging users to engage more thoughtfully and reducing the potential for harmful or inaccurate information to gain traction. Introducing an access limit on each post would prevent posts from going viral and stop the spread of misinformation.
Receiving Notifications
Notifications are everywhere. We've grown so accustomed to them that getting hundreds a day feels normal, some for important emails, but mostly ads or nudges to revisit an app we’d forgotten. Yet, in engagement-driven design, notifications are more than just reminders—they’re a key strategy to capture attention and boost retention. Studies on mobile user behavior (Urban Airship, 2017; Localytics, 2018) show that users who receive notifications are significantly more likely to keep using an app than those who disable them.
We distinguish three types of notifications based on their triggers:
We'll also differentiate between push notifications that appear outside the app and in-app notifications. While they may share triggers, their purpose can vary, some simply aim to grab attention, while others are designed to evoke emotions like satisfaction or gratification (Goldman, 2021).
Lockscreen Notifications: Hey. Hey. HEY!
Pling. Madeline is now following you. Pling. You got a new reply on your comment. Pling. Jackson liked your Post. Pling, pling, pling. More likes, nice. Nice? Pling. Elon Musk has posted a video. Are you interested?
These notifications popping up on our screens have become such a routine part of daily life that we don’t notice how they keep us engaged with our phones. While most seem to be notifying you of activity and transactions, they all have in common that they are also of promotional value. Sometimes, it seems that the reason for the notification is so far-fetched, you start wondering if it is really about your user experience, like this Reddit user: “Solved the mystery of random crap in notifications”.
As mentioned above, the platform highly depends on notifications that drive user engagement and retention. To keep the platform top of mind, they continually send notifications. As Nir Eyal (2014) explains, products create habits through a four-stage "hook" cycle. It starts with a trigger, like a lock screen notification, prompting user action. This investment, such as providing data for personalization, enhances future experiences, reinforcing engagement.
Can there be too many notifications? Studies say yes, after a certain point, users get annoyed and turn them off (Gavilan & Martinez Navarro, 2022) However, another study found that
Speculation
Based on this, we analyzed X’s different notifications and detected a high level of senseless content wanting the user to re-open the app. So why not approach this manipulative pattern with an urge for truth? Can we not promote the app without making up imaginary user interests that need to be served? We believe that especially for high engagement social media apps, only placing a small trigger, containing the app icon aside an absolutely meaningless copy, on the user's home screen will plant the urge to use the app into their minds or as Nir Eyal would say, form their habit of using X.
In-App Notifications: Drowning in Dopamine
Speculation
Now, observe the symbols raining into the screen from the outer world that they come from. Isn’t that such a nice feeling, seeing all those hearts, all the appreciation by peers and strangers for the 140 digits you had sent out before? As more and more notifications appear, the fallen symbols begin to pile up, slowly taking over the screen. It creates a cluttered and chaotic interface, making it harder for you to focus. This speculative approach is designed to grab attention and encourage engagement which then turns into a barrier, disrupting the flow and making more content unreadable. Over time, this buildup kind of reflects the overwhelming and intrusive nature of constant notifications, transforming the user experience into a moment for reflection rather than mindless interaction.
Time and Scrolling
Heard of "doom-scrolling"? It’s the habit of endlessly scrolling through a feed that never ends. Many of us are familiar with the satisfying feeling of switching off our minds and aimlessly scrolling through cute cat videos or other lighthearted content. However, this seemingly harmless activity also has its downsides, particularly for mental health. Over time, the trance-like state induced by endless scrolling can lead to increased anxiety, depression, and feelings of isolation (Satici et al, 2024).
Especially concerning for young adults, prolonged social media use and features like infinite scrolling can worsen mental health by encouraging addictive behavior and diminishing self-awareness. Studies show a clear link between excessive screen time, content overload, and negative psychological effects (APA, 2024). The longer you scroll, the more captivating content you encounter, creating a cycle that keeps you hooked and fixated on your screen.
On X, the endless scroll feature isn’t the only engagement booster. The autoplay function for reels also plays a key role: after a video finishes, the next one automatically slides up, making it hard for users to disengage. Plus, ads disguised as regular posts, tailored to users' preferences, pop up frequently, further increasing engagement.
Scrolling Intervention: Blurry Screen – Clear Mind?
Social media features like infinite scroll can pull you in, making you lose track of time and become more immersed, often without realizing it. This mindless scrolling can even impair memory. However, a study from Cornell University (Ruiz, Molina León & Heuer, 2024) suggests that introducing small "design frictions" on platforms can disrupt this cycle and help users maintain greater awareness.
Speculation
For our design concept, we took the simple act of scrolling and added a twist. As users scroll too quickly, the screen gradually blurs, forcing them to slow down and actually engage with the content. This small friction disrupts mindless, zombie-like scrolling and encourages a more thoughtful, self-aware browsing experience. It could also serve as a visual metaphor for how quickly scrolling makes it harder to truly process information. The blurred screen mirrors the effects of "doom scrolling" and offers a subtle but effective push to counter it.
Friction: A Literal Approach
So often, we talk about friction in a metaphorical sense. Cluttered interfaces, bad performance, cognitive load as well as purposely placed interventions, for example in screen time apps. But couldn’t we just implement friction in a non-metaphorical sense? Friction that feels real, feels physical?
Speculation
We explored this concept within the endless flow of the linear social media feed: When the user scrolls too quickly, the interaction gradually slows down, as if the screen itself is resisting the user’s touch. It feels like the screen is becoming heavier and heavier, as the user is trying to drag it forward, clinching to the background it’s sitting on. Just as your mind is becoming heavier with the minute, with every bit of information you're consuming by the second. Only slowly the scrolling-speed is recovering, reflecting yourself processing the information. Try it out yourself by dragging down the mobile’s screen.
Following and For you
Like other social media apps, X suggests a choice between two different feeds: The “Following” and the “For You” page. The "Following" tab adheres to a mostly linear feed structure, presenting posts in a chronological order. This linear approach provides a real-time perspective on updates from followed accounts. However, this design also incentivizes frequent activity, as older posts can quickly become buried under new content.
“For You” is displayed automatically when the app is opened. The name subtly implies that X exactly knows what is best for you. It displays a mixture of algorithmically suggested content and posts from accounts you follow, making it difficult to distinguish between the two.
As a result, the user unconsciously consumes algorithmically curated content and can gradually become immersed in a bubble of information, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives (Milano, Taddeo, & Floridi, 2020). This phenomenon is called “echo chambers”. While echo chambers can provide a sense of community and deepen engagement with specific topics, they also pose significant challenges (Gillani et al., 2021). A review highlights that such environments may contribute to increased political polarization and the spread of misinformation, as users are less likely to encounter and consider opposing viewpoints. (Terren & Borge-Bravo, 2021).
Speculation
To offset this imbalance, we have added a third option to the interface. Positioned between the two existing feed options, it is called "Not For You." This new feed presents posts that showcase perspectives different from those the user typically engages with. This allows users to consume a more diverse range of opinions and counteract a distorted, polarized view of reality. People are creatures of habit – we stick to what we know, reinforcing our own perspectives without even realizing it. To shake things up, we borrow from X’s own playbook and make the 'Not For You' page the default landing spot when opening the app. No more effortless scrolling through the same familiar takes. Instead, users are nudged out of their comfort zones, exposed to a broader spectrum of viewpoints, and challenged to see beyond their own echo chambers.
“If you are getting all your information off algorithms being sent through your phone and it’s just reinforcing whatever biases you have, which is the pattern that develops, at a certain point, you just live in a bubble, and that’s part of why our politics is so polarized right now. I think it’s a solvable problem, but I think it’s one we have to spend a lot of time thinking about.”
What Comes Next?
As we’ve deconstructed X’s interface patterns, one thing becomes clear: engagement-driven design is not just a feature, it’s the foundation that keeps users locked in and among other effects, contributes to political polarization. By taking a closer look at these mechanics, we’ve explored how speculative design can serve as a tool to challenge the status quo, revealing the deeper implications of these digital architectures.
Looking ahead, the relevance of these discussions is only set to grow. With Elon Musk’s increasing political influence and Trump’s return to power, the lines between platform governance and political agendas continue to blur. The rise of populism across Europe further underscores how digital platforms shape and are shaped by broader political forces. If engagement remains the core metric driving design choices, the question arises: Can social media ever be “fixed,” or do real solutions inherently conflict with the profit-driven nature of these platforms?
As already mentioned above, we’re not here to offer neat solutions. Instead, our approach was about poking at the system, exposing its quirks, and questioning whether real change can come from within. Maybe it can, maybe it can’t. Either way, it’s worth taking a closer look at the design choices that keep us endlessly scrolling, liking, and arguing.
Overall we can say that this exploration is not just about X. It’s about the future of digital spaces and the power dynamics embedded within them.