Options

ISO Filter

Insight

Hide All Comments

Black Type Font

Share on Facebook

Share on Bluesky

Share on X

Share on LinkedIn

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up

Written by Mike Masnick | Originally published by Techdirt (source) | April 20, 2026 | 5 minutes | Fisked 1 time

from the yet-more-evidence-that-haidt-is-wrong dept1

Funny

John Pettus

2 months ago

For years now, we’ve been repeatedly pointing out that the “social media is destroying kids” narrative, popularized by Jonathan Haidt and others, has been built on a foundation of shaky, often contradictory research.We’ve noted that the actual data is far more nuanced than the moral panic suggests, and that policy responses built on that panic might end up causing more harm than they prevent.1

Well, in terms of policy responses like ending Section 230 protection for user-generated content and requiring age/identity verification to use the web, those responses are almost certainly worth than what they purport to cure.

John Pettus

Respect

2 months ago

Well, here come two massive new studies—one from Australia, one from the UK—that land like a sledgehammer on Haidt’s narrative—and, perhaps more importantly, on Australia’s much-celebrated social media ban for kids under 16.

The Australian study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, followed over 100,000 Australian adolescents across three years and found something that should give every policymaker pause: the relationship between social media use and well-being isn’t linear.It’s U-shaped.Perhaps most surprisingly, kids who use social media moderately have the best outcomes.Kids who use it excessively have worse outcomes.But here’s the kicker: kids who don’t use it at all also have worse outcomes.1

Insightful

John Pettus

2 months ago

This isn’t to say that all kids should use social media.Unlike some others, we’re not saying any of this shows that social media causes good or bad health outcomes.We’re pointing out that the claims of inherent harm seem not just overblown, but wrong.

From the study’s key findings:

A U-shaped association emerged where moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being.For girls, moderate use became most favorable from middle adolescence onward, while for boys, no use became increasingly problematic from midadolescence, exceeding risks of high use by late adolescence.

This seems like pretty strong evidence that Haidt’s claims of inherent harm are not well-founded, and the policy proposals to ban kids entirely from social media are a bad idea.1

That may be a logical conclusion if the data does in fact show that *too little* social media use is also bad for kids.

John Pettus

Respect

2 months ago

For older teenage boys, having no social media was associated with worse outcomes than having too much of it.The study found that nonusers in grades 10-12 had significantly higher odds of low well-being compared to moderate users—with boys showing an odds ratio of 3.00 and girls at 1.79.1

What does that mean? And what are the mechanisms that connect that to the over- or under-use of social media?Are we talking about- not having any friends?- poor socialization/empathy skills?- low creativity?- low happiness?I can imagine kids quitting social media, when all it shows them are attractive and popular kids having more fun than you, if you are sad or depressed. But is that correlation or causation?

John Pettus

Respect

2 months ago

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Manchester just published a separate study in the Journal of Public Health that followed 25,000 11- to 14-year-olds over three school years.Their conclusion?Screen time spent on social media or gaming does not cause mental health problems in teenagers.At all.

From the Guardian’s coverage of the UK study:

The study found no evidence for boys or girls that heavier social media use or more frequent gaming increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression over the following year.Increases in girls’ and boys’ social media use from year 8 to year 9 and from year 9 to year 10 had zero detrimental impact on their mental health the following year.

Zero.Not “small.”Not “modest.”Zero.

The UK researchers also examined whether how kids use social media matters—active chatting versus passive scrolling.The answer?Neither appeared to drive mental health difficulties.As lead author Dr. Qiqi Cheng put it:

We know families are worried, but our results do not support the idea that simply spending time on social media or gaming leads to mental health problems – the story is far more complex than that.

The Australian researchers, to their credit, are appropriately cautious about causation:

While heavy use was associated with poorer well-being and abstinence sometimes coincided with less favorable outcomes, these findings are observational and should be interpreted cautiously.

But while researchers urge caution, politicians have been happy to sprint ahead.

Australia leapt into the fray, and the ban has so far proven to be a complete mess.

The entire premise of Australia’s ban—and similar proposals floating around in various US states and across Europe—is that social media is inherently harmful to young people, and that removing access is protective.But both studies suggest the reality is far more complicated.The Australian researchers explicitly call this out:

Social media’s association with adolescent well-being is complex and nonlinear, suggesting that both abstinence and excessive use can be problematic depending on developmental stage and sex.

In other words: Australia’s ban may be taking kids who would have been moderate users with good outcomes and forcing them into the “no use” category that the study associates with worse well-being.1

That assumes there is a causal relationship between social media use and these well-being outcomes.

John Pettus

Respect

2 months ago

It’s potentially the worst of all possible policy outcomes.

The UK study’s co-author, Prof. Neil Humphrey, reinforced this point:

Our findings tell us that young people’s choices around social media and gaming may be shaped by how they’re feeling but not necessarily the other way around.Rather than blaming technology itself, we need to pay attention to what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel in their daily lives.1

Insightful

John Pettus

2 months ago

That’s a crucial distinction that the moral panic crowd keeps glossing over: correlation running in the opposite direction than assumed.1

Biased Wording

"moral panic crowd" is not neutral language.

John Pettus

Respect

2 months ago

Kids who are already struggling, and who aren’t getting the support they need, might use social media differently—not the other way around.1

Insightful

John Pettus

2 months ago

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention.We’ve covered study after study showing that the relationship between social media and teen mental health is complicated, context-dependent, and nowhere near as clear-cut as Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” would have you believe.As we’ve noted before, correlation is not causation, and the timing of teen mental health declines doesn’t actually line up neatly with smartphone adoption the way the narrative claims.1

Insightful

John Pettus

2 months ago

But nuance doesn’t make for good headlines or popular books.“Social Media Is Complicated And The Effects Depend On How You Use It, Your Age, Your Sex, And A Bunch Of Other Factors” doesn’t quite have the same ring as “Smartphones Destroyed A Generation.”1

Funny

John Pettus

2 months ago

No one’s beating down my door to write a book detailing the trade-offs and nuances.Instead, Haidt’s book remains on the NY Times’ best seller list almost two years after being published.

The Australian study also highlights something else that should be obvious but apparently needs repeating: social media serves genuine social functions for teenagers.Being completely cut off from the platforms where your peers are socializing, sharing, and connecting has costs.The researchers note:

Heavy use has been associated with distress, while abstinence may cause missed connections.

This is what we’ve been saying forever.These platforms aren’t just “distraction machines” or “attention hijackers” or whatever scary framing is popular this week.They’re where social life happens for a lot of young people.Cutting kids off entirely doesn’t return them to some idyllic pre-digital social existence.It cuts them off from their actual social world.

Both sets of researchers make the same point: online experiences aren’t inherently harmless—hurtful messages, online pressures, and extreme content can have real effects.But blunt instruments like time-based restrictions or outright bans completely miss the target, and are unlikely to help those who need it most.The Australian authors recommend “promotion of balanced and purposeful digital engagement as part of a broader strategy.”

That’s… actually sensible policy advice?Based on actual evidence?

Imagine that.

Meanwhile, Australia is out there celebrating how many accounts it’s deleted, tech companies are scrambling to comply with fines of up to $49.5 million, the UK is actively considering following Australia’s lead, and policymakers around the world are looking at Australia as a model to follow.

Maybe—just maybe—they should look at the actual research coming out of Australia and the UK instead.

Closing comments:

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up | Techdirt

SoundCloud Widget

Evil ICE Fucks Ate Lunch At A Mexican Restaurant Just So They Could Come Back And Detain The People Who Fed Them

Techdirt Podcast Episode 441: A Manifesto To Build A Better Internet

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up

Studies

from the yet-more-evidence-that-haidt-is-wrong dept

Wed, Jan 21st 2026 12:22pm - Mike Masnick

For years now, we’ve been repeatedly pointing out that the “social media is destroying kids” narrative, popularized by Jonathan Haidt and others, has been built on a foundation of shaky, often contradictory research. We’ve noted that the actual data is far more nuanced than the moral panic suggests, and that policy responses built on that panic might end up causing more harm than they prevent.

The Australian study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, followed over 100,000 Australian adolescents across three years and found something that should give every policymaker pause: the relationship between social media use and well-being isn’t linear. It’s U-shaped. Perhaps most surprisingly, kids who use social media moderately have the best outcomes. Kids who use it excessively have worse outcomes. But here’s the kicker: kids who don’t use it at all also have worse outcomes.

This isn’t to say that all kids should use social media. Unlike some others, we’re not saying any of this shows that social media causes good or bad health outcomes. We’re pointing out that the claims of inherent harm seem not just overblown, but wrong.

From the study’s key findings:

A U-shaped association emerged where moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being. For girls, moderate use became most favorable from middle adolescence onward, while for boys, no use became increasingly problematic from midadolescence, exceeding risks of high use by late adolescence.

This seems like pretty strong evidence that Haidt’s claims of inherent harm are not well-founded, and the policy proposals to ban kids entirely from social media are a bad idea. For older teenage boys, having no social media was associated with worse outcomes than having too much of it. The study found that nonusers in grades 10-12 had significantly higher odds of low well-being compared to moderate users—with boys showing an odds ratio of 3.00 and girls at 1.79.

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Manchester just published a separate study in the Journal of Public Health that followed 25,000 11- to 14-year-olds over three school years. Their conclusion? Screen time spent on social media or gaming does not cause mental health problems in teenagers. At all.

From the Guardian’s coverage of the UK study:

The study found no evidence for boys or girls that heavier social media use or more frequent gaming increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression over the following year. Increases in girls’ and boys’ social media use from year 8 to year 9 and from year 9 to year 10 had zero detrimental impact on their mental health the following year.

Zero. Not “small.” Not “modest.” Zero.

The UK researchers also examined whether how kids use social media matters—active chatting versus passive scrolling. The answer? Neither appeared to drive mental health difficulties. As lead author Dr. Qiqi Cheng put it:

We know families are worried, but our results do not support the idea that simply spending time on social media or gaming leads to mental health problems – the story is far more complex than that.

The Australian researchers, to their credit, are appropriately cautious about causation:

While heavy use was associated with poorer well-being and abstinence sometimes coincided with less favorable outcomes, these findings are observational and should be interpreted cautiously.

But while researchers urge caution, politicians have been happy to sprint ahead.

Australia leapt into the fray, and the ban has so far proven to be a complete mess.

The entire premise of Australia’s ban—and similar proposals floating around in various US states and across Europe—is that social media is inherently harmful to young people, and that removing access is protective. But both studies suggest the reality is far more complicated. The Australian researchers explicitly call this out:

Social media’s association with adolescent well-being is complex and nonlinear, suggesting that both abstinence and excessive use can be problematic depending on developmental stage and sex.

In other words: Australia’s ban may be taking kids who would have been moderate users with good outcomes and forcing them into the “no use” category that the study associates with worse well-being. It’s potentially the worst of all possible policy outcomes.

The UK study’s co-author, Prof. Neil Humphrey, reinforced this point:

Our findings tell us that young people’s choices around social media and gaming may be shaped by how they’re feeling but not necessarily the other way around. Rather than blaming technology itself, we need to pay attention to what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel in their daily lives.

That’s a crucial distinction that the moral panic crowd keeps glossing over: correlation running in the opposite direction than assumed. Kids who are already struggling, and who aren’t getting the support they need, might use social media differently—not the other way around.

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. We’ve covered study after study showing that the relationship between social media and teen mental health is complicated, context-dependent, and nowhere near as clear-cut as Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” would have you believe. As we’ve noted before, correlation is not causation, and the timing of teen mental health declines doesn’t actually line up neatly with smartphone adoption the way the narrative claims.

But nuance doesn’t make for good headlines or popular books. “Social Media Is Complicated And The Effects Depend On How You Use It, Your Age, Your Sex, And A Bunch Of Other Factors” doesn’t quite have the same ring as “Smartphones Destroyed A Generation.”

No one’s beating down my door to write a book detailing the trade-offs and nuances. Instead, Haidt’s book remains on the NY Times’ best seller list almost two years after being published.

The Australian study also highlights something else that should be obvious but apparently needs repeating: social media serves genuine social functions for teenagers. Being completely cut off from the platforms where your peers are socializing, sharing, and connecting has costs. The researchers note:

Heavy use has been associated with distress, while abstinence may cause missed connections.

This is what we’ve been saying forever. These platforms aren’t just “distraction machines” or “attention hijackers” or whatever scary framing is popular this week. They’re where social life happens for a lot of young people. Cutting kids off entirely doesn’t return them to some idyllic pre-digital social existence. It cuts them off from their actual social world.

Both sets of researchers make the same point: online experiences aren’t inherently harmless—hurtful messages, online pressures, and extreme content can have real effects. But blunt instruments like time-based restrictions or outright bans completely miss the target, and are unlikely to help those who need it most. The Australian authors recommend “promotion of balanced and purposeful digital engagement as part of a broader strategy.”

That’s… actually sensible policy advice? Based on actual evidence?

Imagine that.

Maybe—just maybe—they should look at the actual research coming out of Australia and the UK instead.

Filed Under: jonathan haidt, kids, mental health, research, social media

Short Link - right-click to copy Email this Reddit This!Tweet Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn

34 Comments Leave a Comment

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Click to toggle

Rate this comment as insightful

Rate this comment as funny

You have rated this comment as insightful

You have rated this comment as funny

Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam

You have flagged this comment

The first word has already been claimed

The last word has already been claimed

InsightfulLightbulb iconFunnyLaughing iconAbusive/trolling/spamFlag iconInsightful badgeLightbulb iconFunny badgeLaughing iconComments icon

Comments on “Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

Filter comments in by Time
Filter comments as Threaded
Filter only comments rated Insightful
Filter only comments rated funny LOL
Filter only comments that are Unread

34 Comments Collapse all replies

This comment is new since your last visit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

There are tons and tons of studies saying it DOES cause issues for kids, and it’s also kinda obvious to any parent or someone who works with kids.

So no, your cherry picked studies don’t really make all that go away.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

There are tons and tons of studies saying it DOES cause issues for kids

There literally are not. There are studies that show that some percentage (generally somewhere between 5 and 10%) do struggle with it, but it remains unclear as to why or how, with the best suggestion so far being that they are children who are dealing with mental health issues and not getting the help they need, which causes them to turn to social media, rather than getting help.

So no, your cherry picked studies don’t really make all that go away.

It’s not cherry picked. These are two massively large studies published in top notch journals. The fact that there are no real comprehensive studies that show the opposite… well…

This comment is new since your last visit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Threaded [3]

There are studies that show that some percentage (generally somewhere between 5 and 10%) do struggle with it

I didn’t say “all kids”. Smoking gives you cancer. It doesn’t give EVERYONE cancer, that’s not what that means. 10% is a lot, actually.

It’s not cherry picked.

Yeah, they are.

10% is a lot.

Idiot.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [4]

I’m sorry. I thought I was responding to someone who had at least a modicum of understanding about statistics and social sciences. Now that I realize you do not, I will move on to more productive things.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [4]

10% is a lot.

And 90% is, what, a smaller number?

This comment is new since your last visit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Threaded [5]

If every time you ate blueberries, there was a 10% chance you lost a finger, would you think 10% is a lot, or a little?

Your comment is, as usual, completely pointless, and it’s funny you don’t realize it.

It’s not like 51% of heavy smokers get lung cancer. That is not how this works. The fact it’s way less than that does not make the risk of cancer from smoking “small”.

fuuuuck what you said was so stupid.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [6]

If every time you ate blueberries, there was a 10% chance you lost a finger, would you think 10% is a lot, or a little?

I would think “why the fuck am I eating blueberries if I could lose a finger by eating one, what the fuck is wrong with me, I’m not a fucking Trump worshipper”.

And while I do get your point about relativity and all, you still have to remember that 10% is, in terms of statistics, a far smaller number than 90%. We can look at the 10% and wonder what the hell’s going on there while still acknowledging the other 90%. It’s a lot like vaccines: Yes, there can be extreme negative side effects, but they’re so statistically rare in the documented history of vaccinations that we can both acknowledge how overwhelmingly safe vaccines have been over said documented history and still put an effort into studying those rare side effects so we might find a way to potentially mitigate them.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [4]

Smoking […] doesn’t give EVERYONE cancer

In exchange for some of them getting cancer, smokers get… weight loss, perhaps? But it’s not a particularly good way to lose weight, which leaves very little upside.

Social media lets people communicate, which is generally recognized as good for mental health. That’s a potentially significant upside that needs to be weighed against any downsides—especially for those people who, for whatever reason, don’t “fit in” locally.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

What makes that the best suggestion? I feel like AC’s comment below is the best explanation and the most reasonable take.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [4]

That was what Prof. Candice Odgers found, and her whole career has been spent studying kids and tech. She initially tried to prove that social media was bad for mental health, and tried to do so over and over again, and couldn’t find the evidence for it. But she did see evidence that supported that reverse causality, of kids who did not have needed mental health support turning to social media for lack of a better option.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

The fact that there are no real comprehensive studies that show the opposite… well…

There are in fact real studies that find the opposite (including ones that use the cross lag approach used in e.g. Cheng that you’re citing). You typically discount them as correlational so therefore not counting, but they do exist. (and to be clear, there are others that don’t find evidence of it. It is by no means one way).

There’s also a few studies like Braghieri 2022, which is also comprehensive, well cited, and causal. And for some reason, never gets acknowledged either.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [4]

There’s also a few studies like Braghieri 2022, which is also comprehensive, well cited, and causal. And for some reason, never gets acknowledged either.

Venturing a guess, the reason the Braghieri study may not be considered overly relevant could have something to do with these caveats as noted by the authors:

The results presented in this paper, which rely on the staggered rollout of Facebook

across US college campuses in 2004–2006, should be interpreted with caution for

several reasons.

First, our estimates cannot speak directly to the effects of social

media features (e.g., news pages) that were introduced after the time period we analyze. Similarly, our estimates cannot speak directly to the possibility that years of

experience with the platform might teach users ways to mitigate the negative effects

on mental health. 3

Second, despite being the core component of most mental health diagnoses, self-reports may still suffer from measurement error due to recall bias, lack of incentives, and social image concerns.4

Finally, we note that our estimates are local to college students, a population of direct interest in the discussion about the recent worsening of mental health trends among adolescents and young adults. Nevertheless, future research should test whether social media has a similar effect on the mental health of other demographic groups.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [5]

Venturing a guess, the reason the Braghieri study may not be considered overly relevant could have something to do with these caveats as noted by the authors:

Maybe? We shouldn’t have to guess, is the thing. For all we know, Mike’s never read it. But even if that’s the case, I don’t it can justify saying things like “no studies”/”no evidence”, especially when you’re writing to an audience that isn’t going to know it exists. It is relevant evidence. I’ve mentioned it before, but I think it’s reasonable to say you don’t think Braghieri and similar studies are convincing, for whatever reason. But I do think you have to acknowledge they exist, even if they don’t rise to the bar you’d want to see.

That said, those particular caveats don’t seem to warrant labeling it as not relevant, especially as one of the very very few truly causal studies (but YMMV)? So I’d be interested to hear an actual argument for how they justify that. As far as caveats go, they’re pretty mild, and typical for an academic paper. Academic papers are usually very careful about what they can actually claim, which is why at least one of papers (the open source one. can’t see the other) above also has a similar limitations sections, but that doesn’t make them useless. Citations aren’t everything, but there’s a reason it’s cited 800 times, and it’s not because it’s irrelevant.

Ideally, we’d follow it up with a bunch of other studies. But Baghieri is special, because you can’t easily recreate that sort of natural experiment. There’s a reason we don’t have many causal studies, and we’re stuck using stuff like cross-lags or RCTs instead. The reason I harp on Baghieri in particular is because it’s truly causal, which Mike likes to make a big deal of (which coincidentally excludes most studies). But if you’re willing to look at correlational studies, there’s a lot more data. And that’s another egregious issue- he often says there’s no causal evidence, but he doesn’t mention why. It would be vastly different to present that properly.

TLDR is nothing justifies it being so irrelevant as to ignore it completely, even if you don’t find it completely compelling.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

“which causes them to turn to social media, rather than getting help”

I thought we needed kids to be able to access social media to get the help they need. Or is that only trans kids that get help there, the rest get professional help?

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [4]

I thought we needed kids to be able to access social media to get the help they need. Or is that only trans kids that get help there, the rest get professional help?

Why does is not surprise me that you can’t fathom that finding community can be important for some groups, which is different than getting professional support for mental health crisis.

The only way your comment makes sense is if you think that being trans is a mental illness, which really says a lot about you. None of it good.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [5]

“you think that being trans is a mental illness”

Yes

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [6]

Then you are a very stupid, ignorant, hateful person and I hope that one day you will educate yourself, learn some empathy and humility, and mature.

Until then, fuck off.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

You sound no different from antivaxxers.

This comment is new since your last visit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Threaded [3]

You sound no different from antivaxxers.

This is funny, cuz you don’t even know what that MEANS.

Do you think all vaccines are the same? The flu vaccine has a 40% effectiveness rate. It’s a REALLY shitty vaccine. It also has no real side effects beyond making you feel like crap for a day, but it’s still crap.

Early Polio vaccines on the other hand, could have deadly side effects. A lot of early vaccines would sometimes just cause the disease they were meant to stop (cuz not all the viruses had been “killed”).

The MMR vaccine on the other hand is great, you should always get it.

Anyway, you’re ignorant af and responding from a political reflex, is the point.

This comment is new since your last visit.

I haven’t read the studies but I would have thought that the kids that don’t have any social media usage might have worse outcomes because their peers are all using it and they are being left out? So taking it away from all children would possibly remove those negative outcomes.

Same with phones in schools, unless all kids are banned then the ones that don’t have them are going to missing a significant percentage of social interaction that is happening. I’ve seen several stories of kids apparently being happy when phones were banned from their schools.

Some of the brightest minds in the world are spending their not inconsiderable talents figuring out how to get kids (and adults) addicted to their platforms no matter what the cost.

In general terms though, what good has social media actually brought overall? Why are you such a firm believer that this is good for kids and should be encouraged? Texting, chats and other forms of communication are still available outside of Facebook and TikTok etc, we don’t need to live our lives on algorithmically generated content mills.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

“So taking it away from all children would possibly remove those negative outcomes”

The answer to people being socially isolated is not to make everyone socially isolated.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

Taking social media away from children doesn’t lead to social isolation.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

Socially isolated from what? Sure, they might be isolated from the rest of the world, but if ALL of the kids (at one school, e.g.) don’t have their noses glued to their phones, then they will ALL be looking up and around at each other – and realize that their social situation is with each other, in their physical bodies – they can actually speak to each other with their mouths, rather than through their screens. They will not be socially isolated from each other just because they don’t have their social media. They will be social with each other like we all were before there were smart phones.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

You already live in a consumerism-dominated society and economy created by those bright minds going back ages. Maybe we should be fixing society and capitalism instead.

What good is it for people to communicate outside whatever local closet they live in? How stupid for anyone to ever do otherwise.

No, the downsides aren’t cause by FOMO. Are you even serious.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Is there some under-appreciated, readable and accessible, potential new best-seller out there — one based on sound data, properly evaluated and reflecting the perspective from relevant expertise — that deserves to be promoted as a counter-narrative debunking of Haidt’s Anxious Generation and similar social-media focused panic mongering?

It’s been almost two years since Anxious Generation came out — a proper popular debunking seems overdue…

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

Pete Etchell’s Unlocked is kinda like that!

https://www.peteetchells.com/unlocked-book

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

The problem is that is all the time the actual scientists spend doing science, the “social media is drugs” grifters get to spend on propagandizing.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [3]

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.

This comment is new since your last visit.

And there’s Danah Boyd’s 2014 study, It’s Complicated, which is readily available to download as a PDF from her site. In the UK, Sonia Livingstone at the LSE has done some research on the benefits of online access for teens and younger kids.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

I’ll theck those out, too. Thanks.

This comment is new since your last visit.

I worked for a little under a year at a children’s psychiatric ward. I haven’t really engaged in this debate too deeply so my observations should always come with that grain of salt, but there is definitely a good argument to be made that the kids who are already struggling will be most negatively affected by social media. A lot of the kids I saw had difficult home lives on top of organic mental illnesses and/or cognitive disabilities. A lot of them were angry and isolated before they began exploring online communities, and even more of them had conditions like autism and/or ADHD which, from a personal perspective (I have autism), can make the unceasing onslaught of content that is the internet overwhelming and all consuming. Many autistic people like myself also struggle with the fact that people lie. I (and several friends I know) are almost pre programmed to take people at their word, especially if they are appear to be a compelling source of information. This makes autistic kids pretty vulnerable to an online bullying, manipulation, and misinformation. That doesn’t mean keeping us offline, though. Maybe we should be studying more specific groups of children and targeting solutions rather than just outright bans for all.

This comment is new since your last visit.

the “no use” part of this is the real kicker because it shows that cutting kids off entirely can be just as bad as letting them scroll all day. it makes sense if all your friends are in a group chat and you’re the only one locked out because of a ban you arent being “shielded” you’re just being left out and isolated. politicians love a “save the children” headline but they’re ignoring the fact that for a lot of kids, social media is actually where they find community or even the courage to ask for help. if they actually cared about well-being they’d focus on real support like therapist.org/directory so people have someone to talk to when they feel that isolation, instead of just taking the lazy way out with a ban that probably makes things worse.

This comment is new since your last visit.

Threaded [2]

No, it does not show that. That’s the problem with observational vs. prospective research. All we know is there a correlation between non-use and poorer outcomes (compared to moderate use). What we don’t know is whether those kids would have had poorer outcomes regardless of whether they had access to social media or not, especially if all their peers also had access removed. It’s easy to come up with causal arguments both ways. For example, non-users may have had poorer outcomes because the kind of kids who naturally don’t want to use social media are social outcasts, maladjusted, antisocial, etc. This is therefore a group that is much more enriched for poor behavior than the average, moderate use group.

It’s of course also easy to go to a historical argument. Kids were fine growing up before social media existed. There is zero reason to think that kids NEED social media for healthy development!

This comment is new since your last visit.

I think that to say that kids who use no social media have worse outcomes is to miss a very important point:

It is only BECAUSE of the existence of social media that real-world social spaces have disappeared. The problem created by social media is easier to deal with if you use social media.

Get rid of social media entirely and the physical spaces will need to be rebuilt. Once they’re back, everybody will be happier.

Add Your Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Name

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

URL

Subject

Comment *

Comment Options:

Use markdown.Use plain text.

Make this the First Word or Last Word.No thanks.( get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Please leave this field empty

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Podcast Episode

Audio Player

00:00 | 37:57

More Info

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

Cupertino d'État

Jun 12, 2026Season 1Episode 106

Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

In this week's episode, Mike and Ben cover:

Tech bosses threatened with prison if they fail to protect children (The Times)
Apple and Google given three months to ban nude images on children's devices (BBC News)
Keir Starmer’s social media ban for under-16s could backfire, experts warn (OpenDemocracy)
Apple previews new child safety features (Apple)
Apple's WWDC keynote was very different, but this will be the new normal (9to5mac)
Ottawa introduces bill to restrict social media for teens, regulate AI chatbots (Globe and Mail)
Australia builds enforcement layer behind age assurance laws (Biometric Update)
NCAC Welcomes Meta Oversight Board's New Account Recommendations (NCAC)

And in the extended episode for Patreon supporters, they cover:

Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 (Anthropic)
Microsoft restricts Claude Fable for employees over data retention concern (The Verge)
The Rise of the Compliant Speech Platform (Lawfare)
Policy on the AI Exponential (Dario Amodei)

Our fun links this week are the 7-0 World Cup game (Ben) and Chipotlai Max (Mike).

If you’re already a Patreon supporter, you can get the extended episode on Patreon.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is the podcast where we make sense of the major debates shaping online speech, platform power, content moderation and the future of the internet. It’s co-hosted by Mike Masnick ( Techdirt) and Ben Whitelaw ( Everything in Moderation).

Share Episode

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Download

Apple Podcasts Spotify More

Apple Podcasts Spotify Overcast Amazon Music Podcast Addict Castro Castbox Podchaser Pocket Casts Listen Notes Player FM Podcast Index Goodpods YouTube TrueFans RSS Feed

A weekly news podcast from

Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

Read All »

Trending Posts

Techdirt Deals

Buy Now\ $219.00

Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows: Lifetime License

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

aabsurdity:They're simply choosing to escalate rather than retreat. It will not end well for them.
Leah Abram:In lighter stories
I just found out that there's fan-fiction of The Maltese Falcon that actually resolves the story with closure: https://www.amazon.com/Return-Ma...\ https://www.amazon.com/Return-Maltese-Falcon-Allan-Collins/
I ❤️ The Public Domain!
BentFranklin:If Trump runs for a third term let's nominate Obama to run against him.
Leah Abram:[gifv]\ https://tenor.com/view/do-it-star-wars-emperor-palpatine-palpatine-gif-7523581979863470761
BentFranklin:Trump Tower Tehran: you heard it here first
tomacamot:I wish I hadn't
candescence:So the judge for that $10b IRS Trump case agreed to reopen it.
https://thehill.com/regulation/c...\ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5902065-trump-irs-lawsuit-reopened/
imatool13:I imagined all roads would lead to this anyway, just didn't assume this quickly.
John Roddy:Not *quite*
More like dragging the plaintiff back into court to explain
aabsurdity:Bluesky's new moderation system silencing entire accounts for posting adult content is pretty bleak. :(
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc...\ https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:34ydeurdtukrpzjjelklch4y/post/3mn5p4mttas22 https://bsky.app/profile/teethgr...\ https://bsky.app/profile/teethgrip.bsky.social/post/3mn4kej3ctk2q
John Roddy:All right, so who's going to be the one to write about Clarence Thomas's blog post in today's order list?
That last paragraph is just too perfect
intelati:What.

What a cursed sentence/timeline

https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.b...\ https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3mna7cn7lpc2j
Oh.
aabsurdity:Thomas evidently spending so much time wearing his klan hood, nobody's had the heart to tell him he's black...
Mike Masnick:there was that biographer of thomas who says he's actually never given up his black radical past, but believes that the only way for Black radicalism to succeed is to remove any and all attempts to help the Black community so that they have to do it entirely on their own. A kind of accelerationist argument
John Roddy:This is why I tell people they're missing the point when they suggest that he's reaching for another Plessy v Fergusson
Nah. More like Prigg v Pennsylvania.
candescence:https://bsky.app/profile/justinb...\ https://bsky.app/profile/justinbaragona.bsky.social/post/3mnaqomeegc26
Yeah, ngl this is legitimately an ass-backwards change that defeats the point of putting content filters in the hands of users and kinda punishes users for correctly marking posts as NSFW https://bsky.app/profile/chocomi...\ https://bsky.app/profile/chocomingo.bsky.social/post/3mmz2dycdjk2v
Leah Abram:Agreed. Bluesky enshittified itself.
(I don't know if Mr. C. Doctorow would agree with my usage of that term, though)
John Roddy:They already started rolling it back
Leah Abram:Wait, what? BlueSky disenshittified themselves? 😮
John Roddy:They seemed to be genuinely shocked by the backlash.
I don't understand how
Leah Abram:So Trumpy rolled back his $1.8B IRS scam and BlueSky walked back their enshittifying changes?
Am I feeling…pride?
[gifv]\ https://klipy.com/gifs/what-nani-1
John Roddy:Mamdani suspended bedtimes
candescence:Must've been a well-intentioned change that the staff _really_ did not think through
But they really should stop with these sudden changes without community input
John Roddy:That's what gets me. BlueSky is one of the very few startups that genuinely took moderation and trust& safety serious from day one
How did they walk into such an obvious backlash like this?
aabsurdity:There were reports that one of the people affected was given a 22 day timer, shown on posts. Because your entire post history dissolves into chastity after 22 days somehow, I guess?
Bluesky moderation has stepped on a few rakes, but this really scared the whole artist community, given all the NSFW and SFW creators whose lives and livelihoods were decimated by PayPal in recent months.
https://bsky.app/profile/safety....\ https://bsky.app/profile/safety.bsky.app/post/3mnb7cza5yc2g I really could do without the idea that the concept of humans having bodies is inherently harmful to people until they turn 18.
Generations of kids have been taught how to deal with being on fire, but nobody wants to have a talk with their kids about *other people* because it's *icky*. 🙄
benv0727:Today, I joined @IJM to call for the Senate to immediately hold a vote on my STOP CSAM Act—which advanced unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Children need protections from predators on the internet, and this bill is an essential first step. There is no more time for delay.

https://x.com/i/status/206185715...\ https://x.com/i/status/2061857154957468115
aabsurdity:If you're quoting someone, it's generally accepted that you will use quote marks to indicate this.
BentFranklin:Microsoft CEO: We’re moving from OS and apps to agents instead
https://9to5mac.com/2026/06/02/m...\ https://9to5mac.com/2026/06/02/microsoft-ceo-were-moving-from-os-and-apps-to-agents-instead/
🤮.
Mike Masnick:at some point i'm going to write something about this, but an agentic-first computing paradigm *really* would fuck up all the efforts to age gate the internet... so I get why people don't like it for the AI of it all, but there are some interesting side effects
John Roddy:I know it usually misses the point to investigate *how* it would break once it's been established that the break is inevitable. But hey, that's still fascinating to weirdos like me.
Also, Matt Taibbi is appealing his defamation loss to the 2nd Circus.
Get in, losers. We're going losing!
candescence:https://bsky.app/profile/yashara...\ https://bsky.app/profile/yasharali.bsky.social/post/3mndxlp273d2g
https://bsky.app/profile/justinb...\ https://bsky.app/profile/justinbaragona.bsky.social/post/3mndxll2mvk2l
Nick Bilton is a thin-skinned stooge.
Mike Masnick:meanwhile... [video]\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36jxNeV5L1Q
aabsurdity:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3...\ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3fS5NyKzygU
Seems to be a decent summary.
Leah Abram:I concur.
imatool13:@Mike Masnick with the prolifieration of Agents is MCP (mixed with skills) protocol above platform? Seems a whole lot of companies open themselves up to AI Agents more than just integrations, curious your thoughts.
BentFranklin:I didn't think we were ever going to get the Musk versus Zuckerberg slapfight we were promised, but now that we will have a cage right there, it would be wasteful not to use it at least a few more times before dismantling it.
aabsurdity:Especially now that Trump wants to keep it forever as a commemoration of his bestest and happiest birthday, like the Eiffel Tower.
intelati:What the

[article]\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/03/trump-ufc-arena-white-house-claw-permanent/90387950007/

I hate this timeline

aabsurdity:It's amazing how Trump does not, and never has, and never will, have any class whatsoever. He genuinely cannot see the difference between the engineering marvel of the Eiffel Tower, and a commonplace (though still a significant technical achievement in its way) lighting scaffold. They're both made of metal.
BentFranklin:How long until his ballroom guests mosey over after dinner to watch gladiators fight to the death with Trump having the final say with 👍 or 👎 ?
aabsurdity:I can't imagine he'd be interested. He'd have to be able to care if people other than himself are alive or dead.
intelati:Not this bout. The next one is a 50/50 shot.

And increasing therein

BentFranklin:You know how mobsters will make you do a crime before they can trust you? So they will always have something on you? I think about that whenever someone says "I was just Epstein's lawyer," or broker, or anything significant.
John Roddy:I someone describe the BAM article as "climbing Mount Masnick"
And my brain immediately did the movie trailer guy voice for "from the makers of Driving Ms Daisy"
Leah Abram:Maybe it’s because of where I live but when I see “BAM” I think “Brooklyn Academy of Music”
aabsurdity:[link]\ https://fxbsky.app/profile/presidentkelly.blacksky.app/post/3mnkf25iyjs2s [article]\ https://fxbsky.app/profile/yeti-detective.bsky.social/post/3mnkhrida222h AI hiring screeners apparently retaining their rejection score for applicants across multiple different jobs, at all the companies they service, for nearly a year. So, get rejected for one job, basically you're unhireable by any company that also uses that tool, for any position, for the next 330 days. That's... Pretty dang bad if true...
BentFranklin:The Smart TV in Your Living Room Is a Node in the AI Scraping Economy
[article]\ https://blog.includesecurity.com/2026/06/the-smart-tv-in-your-livingroom-is-a-node-in-the-aiscraping-economy/
Leah Abram:This is why Dumb TVs are a smart option!
I want a TV dumber than Pete Hegseth!
tomacamot:Or simply don't connect your TV to the Internet
candescence:Scott Pelley is now free to shit on his former bosses and tell the world how much of a propaganda rag CBS is becoming: https://youtu.be/ePqdmbgQ4BI?si=...\ https://youtu.be/ePqdmbgQ4BI?si=DZq7rY81Ur9IcKUt
Quotes include "Bari Weiss Emailed my Boss and asked 'Can you make the protestors look more violent?'" and "Can you describe Renee Good as 'driving at the officer'?"
This is why you don't fire people who know where the bodies are buried.
aabsurdity:Someone said something today that I genuinely hadn't considered, which was the idea that this isn't an anti-journalism conservative deliberately torching a journalistic institution because the money they're spending doesn't mean anything any more, or that the death of CBS is simply advantageous, and instead that this is a project someone believes in and thinks it's going to work. And I have to admit that I didn't even see that as a possibility, but now that I have, that might make it worse.
Mike Masnick:Oh, they absolutely believe it's going to work. The Bari Weisses of the world believe fully that their view of the world has a silent majority behind them who were just waiting to have what The Free Press was delivering to the world...
aabsurdity:Genuinely baffling.
intelati:https://bsky.app/profile/cdelawa...\ https://bsky.app/profile/cdelawalla.bsky.social/post/3mnrigweehc2t
candescence:It looks like Microsoft and Sony's gaming divisions have almost entirely reverted back to exclusivity
Leah Abram:The golden age is over. This is like when Comedy Specials went from DRM-free video files to being included with streaming services
candescence:Sony's pulling back from single-player PC releases is a bit more questionable since low sales there are kinda self-inflicted due to late but overpriced releases, but the Xbox division has a new boss and it seems she's decided that multiplatform releases simply aren't working and are hurting the brand
timothygeigner:Trust me, the exclusivity thing is on my radar. I definitely have things to say about it.
Though why Microsoft won't just admit that they lost the console wars is beyond me.
John Roddy:My favorite was the clarification that the new Gears of War would be *exclusive* to Xbox.
And PC.
The ol' Ubisoft-style definition of exclusive.
aabsurdity:As a PC gamer... 🤷
BentFranklin:Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers
[article]\ https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/
aabsurdity:> First I came for the Communists > And I laughed > Because I was not a Communist > Then I came for the Socialists > And I laughed > Because I was not a Socialist > Then I came for the trade unionists > And I laughed > Because I was not a trade unionist > Then I came for the Jews > And I laughed > Because I was not a Jew > Then they came for me > “If he would do that to me, he would do that to anybody,” I said > “There’s never going to be good enough for him, other than 100 percent, you know, slavish adherence to whatever he wants.“
BentFranklin:Extinction-level capitalism a citizen’s thoughts on AI risk
[article]\ https://matthewbutterick.com/extinction-level-capitalism.html

Become an Insider!


## Monday
13:05	Trump DOJ Friday News Dumps Its Approval Of The Job-Killing Paramount, Warner Bros Merger (0)
11:06	The VCs Who Screamed That Biden Would Kill Powerful AI Models Seem Quite Chill About Trump Actually Doing It (3)
11:01	Daily Deal: The Lifetime Learner Bundle (0)
09:27	Flock Is The New Tool Of Choice For Cops Who Love Stalking Their Exes (5)
05:37	Opposition Mounts To Trump FCC Plan To Kill Burner Phone Anonymity, Ramp Up Surveillance (4)
## Sunday
12:00	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (5)
## Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th (1)
## Friday
19:39	American Diabetes Association Fucked Up Real Bad Trying To Placate Trump Administration (20)
16:33	And Now Basically Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Looks Sketchy (56)
13:07	Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Cupertino d'État (1)

Email This Story

This feature is only available to registered users.

You can register here or sign in to use it.

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up

from the yet-more-evidence-that-haidt-is-wrong dept

Comments on “Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up”

Add Your Comment Cancel reply

Comment Options:

What's this?

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Trending Posts

More

Email This Story

Tools & Services

Company

Contact