Sorry, but Social Media Is More Damaging than TV – Whatever the Research May Say
By Bryony Gordon
Sometimes, people say things so preposterously, blatantly untrue that you almost have to admire them for their deluded chutzpah.
Remember “Comical” Ali who announced that there were no American tanks in Baghdad, as the sound of said tanks rumbled in the background?
Or the tobacco industry executives who, as recently as 1994, were telling congressional committees in the US that cigarette smoking was “no more ‘addictive’ than coffee, tea or Twinkies”? Or the last president, who, despite photographic evidence to the contrary, wanted us to know that his inauguration crowd was the biggest inauguration crowd ever?
Then again, we’re used to these people manipulating the truth (previously known as “lying”). But what happens when vaguely reputable people and institutions start talking absolute cobblers? This week, the Oxford Internet Institute released research that suggested social media was no more detrimental to the mental health of adolescents than watching television. I suppose it depends entirely on what said adolescents are watching. If they happen to be bingeing on old episodes of reality trash like Love Island, or those serial killer documentaries that Netflix seems to love, then, yes, I suppose it is possible that social media is doing no more harm to their mental health than what they are watching on telly. But if they prefer a nice David Attenborough documentary or a bit of Bridgerton, then I struggle to see how this research holds up. Interestingly, even the people involved seem to share this view, caveating their report with a note that big tech had not been entirely forthcoming when it came to assisting the study.
As Prof Andy Przybyiski noted: “We need more transparent and credible collaborations between scientists and technology companies to unlock the answers. The data exists within the tech industry, scientists just need to be able to access it for neutral and independent investigation.” Naturally, this bit didn’t make it into any of the newspaper reports.
It should be said here that, used responsibly, social media can be excellent for one’s mental health, enabling previously disconnected people to meet others and realize they are not alone. Without social media, I would not have been able to start Mental Health Mates, the peer support organization that is now in 80 towns and cities around the country. But this does not absolve big tech of responsibility, in the same way that most industries cannot exist without regulation. Paracetamol is excellent for my health when taken in the correct dose; were manufacturers able to peddle it without sensible guidelines, many people would find themselves in serious trouble.
Currently, no such rules or regulations apply to social media use – just vague promises of legislation that are watered down as we all wait for them to come to fruition. In the meantime, most of the platforms exist in a sort of digital Wild West. Another report this week revealed that two thirds of teenagers had watched porn on social media or messaging apps, rather than sites dedicated to it. This was also the week that footballers completed a social media blackout in protest at the racist abuse. It appears to have had little effect. Instagram has made vague noises to protect footballers from seeing the abuse, but the Professional Footballers Association called the moves “insufficient”.
It reminded me of my attempts to report an account on Twitter, from which I was being sent pictures of myself that had been doctored to include an erect penis over my face. The platform suggested I block the user – surely the online equivalent of telling a woman to pipe down and stop wearing short skirts. Instead, I blocked the entire platform by deleting my account.
Concerns around social media are not the latest moral panic. They are valid and deserved to be listened to, especially when they come from people like Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life in 2017. Last year, a coroner’s court revealed that some of the material Molly had browsed about suicide and self-harm was too disturbing for police to look at for long periods.
Despite Facebook initially providing the family with some of the content Molly had accessed, another pre-inquest in February revealed that the company had been “unwilling” to discuss some of the data provided, much of which had either been redacted or deactivated. The coroner said in February that “every day [the inquest] is delayed poses a potential risk to others exposed to this material”.
Meanwhile, the Online Safety Bill, due to go before Parliament, is apparently full of “exemptions” and “loopholes”. Children’s rights group 5Rights Foundation said last month that “tech companies are investing an awful lot of money in lobbying both at a UK and EU level to make sure the regulation is watered down”.
Let us hope that, within a decade or so, we will look back at this approach to social media in the same slack-jawed disbelief as we do tobacco executives telling us that cigarettes are no worse for our health than Twinkie bars. – The Telegraph
