What Will History Say About Social Media and Child Outcomes?
We may need to look at products of the past
There is one repeated phrase that I see pop up over and over again when I’m reading about social media and kids, which is that “there is no conclusive evidence that social media worsens mental health outcomes in kids.” Arguments by a minority about small associations and moral panic. I want to use this post to discuss one of the main reasons I worry about this narrative.
I first want to be clear that I am not a researcher, and I’m also no pro at interpreting research data. I tend to rely on others to do that for me. But I am a clinician, and in my clinical experience (combined with hundreds of hours of reading, learning and speaking to parents, kids and educators), I have no doubt that social media is harming many children.
And what I do know about the “no conclusive evidence” narrative is twofold-
Robust evidence of causation is almost impossible to prove, because the type of study needed (a large randomized control trial) would be very long, very expensive, and probably unethical.
Even if we could eventually perform these studies, it will take decades, and the harm done during that time will continue to pile up. Why aren’t we trying to get ahead of the data based on the plethora of data we do have?
Big Tech continues to lean on this argument of lack of causation, and they are hoping that these important studies will never be done. Because they know if they are done (in an unbiased way) they’re screwed.
The whole thing makes me think of the tobacco industry. Did you know smoking used to be touted as healthy (by doctors!), and the industry also pushed the ‘no conclusive evidence’ narrative for decades? I compare smoking to social media not because I think they’re the same, but because in both cases, the evidence of harm was covered up for decades.
Before 1950, there was no good evidence that smoking had detrimental health effects. In fact, the industry paid doctors to advertise about their benefits, even to pregnant women and youth. As evidence began mounting in the ‘50’s amid increasing cases of lung cancer, the industry began funding research to try to calm concerns.
Who else funds physicians and researchers? Big Tech. For example, according to the Tech Transparency Project,
“Mark Zuckerberg’s personal philanthropy and his company, Meta, have collectively donated hundreds of millions of dollars to more than 100 U.S. colleges and universities across the country, giving the CEO powerful potential leverage to influence the institutions.”
The tobacco industry lied, covered up data, and put profits over people’s health. Who else lies, covers up data and puts profits over people’s health? Big Tech. More and more ex-tech executives are coming forward to whistleblow about the deceit. One of the most well-known whistleblowers is Frances Haugen, an ex-Facebook employee who testified,
"During my time at Facebook, I came to realize a devastating truth: Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook," Haugen told Congress. "The company intentionally hides vital information from the public, from the U.S. government, and from governments around the world."
So my question is- with overwhelming cross sectional, longitudinal, and correlational data to support harm, when do we decide to try to get ahead of the data? When do we decide to err on the side of caution? Do we really think that if we took a large group of teens and assigned one group to use social media for 1 hour or less per day and the other to use for 4-6 hours per day (the current median), those in the second group won’t show worse mental health outcomes over time? Really? I don’t need a study to tell me that I’d be depressed and anxious (at the very least), and I’m much less vulnerable than a child.
Let’s stop giving Big Tech the benefit of the doubt with the ‘no causal link’ argument, and instead make them prove their product is safe through unbiased studies. Until then, parents are left to decide for themselves. I remain optimistic because I see more of you learning, curious and choosing to hold boundaries within your homes. You’re doing important work!
Oh wow, thats the photo I made... Thanks for your post! The topic is extremely important. I agree with you really much, but I think that the problem of smoking and other issues with kids that they see in media is more the problem of ubsolutely strange upbringing of kids. We should all start with ourselves first, to teach ourself what is right and what is not and only after that to make kids and to let them to understand how does the world work, so they could be self-responsible (what I think is the main goal of any parents - to make their kids independent). It will be not necessary to ban everything that you think is not right, children would be able to understand everything by themselves. That's why I think that we should provide them with the common picture of history until they are 5 y.o. But look what does the government in U.S. now, through the workers in kindergartens and schools they are translating the big deal about your sex and changing children focus from what the world is to "what do you want to be" while we all know, that even teenagers (mostly) aren't able to make such a strong decision, because that's how kid's psychology work, it's just our nature. We should start only with us and our families...
I am certainly no friend of Big Tech, and they indeed have a very dark side. Alas, that's what happens under neoliberalism (aka late-stage capitalism on steroids and crack), where big corporations can run amuck and be totally unaccountable to We the People. That is the real "wholesale sin" here, while individual users (of all ages) are at worst guilty only of "retail sin". And the latest hyper-focus on age is largely a red herring in that regard.