Differential Vulnerability

principle

A tool’s risk depends partly on the person using it: mental-health or self-control difficulties can turn manageable access into persistent harm. Uniform rules therefore protect least well where vulnerability is greatest.

The “good part” of Instagram may be perfectly reachable—and still effectively unavailable to someone who cannot reliably stop before the harmful part takes over.

E1

Access meets unequal control

Instagram does not encounter every user with the same defences. One person can enter for a useful interaction and leave; another may have mental-health or control difficulties that weaken the discipline needed to disengage. The content and access may be identical, but the capacity to regulate exposure is not. That mismatch is differential vulnerability: a rule designed around the typical user can fail precisely for the person who needs stronger protection.

E1

Where it shows up

The unstable boundary inside Instagram

Instagram can contain a beneficial zone without providing a dependable boundary around it. For a vulnerable user, “use only the good part” is not a workable safeguard when continued use depends on the very self-control already under strain.

E1

Vulnerability is not destiny

The principle does not show that everyone with a mental-health or control difficulty will be harmed, or that Instagram is uniformly harmful. It identifies a risk asymmetry, not an individual diagnosis: vulnerability changes the odds, while the evidence here does not establish who will struggle or how much access is safe.

E1

Design for the person who cannot simply stop

Replace one household-wide Instagram rule with an individual access plan: for the person who repeatedly crosses their intended limit, add one external constraint tomorrow—such as removing the app from their phone—rather than asking for more discipline.

E1

Episodes that teach this