You're reading “The Checkup With Dr. Wen,” a newsletter about addressing medical and public health challenges. Click here to receive the full newsletter, including answers to readers' questions and summaries of new scientific studies, delivered to your inbox.
As I wrote this week, many public health advocates support Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy's call for mandatory warning labels on social media because of its negative effects on young people, but not everyone agrees. Criticisms center around five main points, which I'll discuss here.
1. Social media can be used for good
Some argue that social media can allow LGBTQ+ and other young people who might otherwise feel left out to find community more easily through it, as it provides educational resources and facilitates communication, so restricting social media could have negative effects on especially vulnerable teens.
This ignores the fact that even without social media, young people seeking community have many other online resources, such as forums and support groups.
Follow this author Leana S. Wen's opinion
Additionally, apps like TikTok, Instagram, and others are rife with misinformation, violence, and sexually explicit content. They also provide ample opportunities for bullying, exploitation, and harassment. As Murthy said in an interview, “There are numerous case studies of young people having very negative experiences on social media that have led to self-harm and suicide.”
2. There are good reasons why teenagers have smartphones, including during school hours.
It's interesting that the biggest advocates of smartphone use in schools are often parents, who say they need a way to stay in touch with their kids.
While it may be convenient to be able to text your child if their pick-up schedule changes, it doesn't outweigh the major drawback: it can distract your child from their studies. There's ample evidence that cell phones are a learning distraction: One 2023 study found that teenagers spend an average of 43 minutes on their cell phones during class.
Presumably, these parents didn't have cell phones when they were kids. Just like in the old days, if there's a genuine emergency, parents can call the front desk and leave a message. And parents who need to communicate directly with their kids can use a phone like Gabb Phone, harkening back to the days before smartphones were the standard option. Kids can talk and text on the phone, but they can't access social media apps.
3. Kids find ways to get around controls.
Restrictions on social media apps and smartphones will undoubtedly lead young people to look for workarounds, many of which may work because they are more tech-savvy than their parents.
But that's like saying teenagers are going to smoke and drink anyway, so why bother trying to stop them? The resourcefulness of young people is a reason for tech companies to work more closely with parents to protect kids, not an excuse to give up.
4. It’s simplistic to say that limiting social media will improve children’s mental health.
The youth mental health crisis has multiple causes, one of which is social media, and while no one is saying that limiting social media use will solve the crisis, research shows that it can help.
Three large-scale studies of adolescents found that heavy social media users (those who spend more than five hours a day on social media) are up to 171% more likely to be unhappy than infrequent social media users (less than one hour a day). Another study found that girls who reported using digital media for more than two hours a day were more likely to be depressed or self-harm than those who used less. The good news is that researchers report that reducing social media time to one hour a day can lead to improved self-esteem.
Consider, too, that teens spend an average of five hours a day on social media. What are they replacing that time with? Over half of teens use their phones between midnight and 5am on school days.
“This often comes at the expense of sleep,” Murthy says, and it also keeps people from engaging in healthier activities like getting outdoors, hanging out with friends, and playing sports.
5. There is not enough data to prove that social media worsens children’s mental health.
It is true that not all studies have found a strong correlation between social media and youth mental health issues, but in my opinion, the data is strong enough.
Murthy also makes another important point: “For other products aimed at children, like car seats, baby food, medicines, etc., the burden is on the companies to prove their safety. This hasn't happened with social media, and frankly, it never will because the research doesn't back it up.”
Moreover, Murthy argues, they would expect the government to take immediate action if there were even a few safety issues with other products. “We would launch an investigation,” he says. “We would call for pause. We would say, we need to understand what's going on here because the safety of our children is crucial.” But that's not what's happening on social media.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, we often don't have time to wait for perfect data. The question is not “Are we 100% certain of cause and effect?” but rather “What is the lesser harm of taking action versus inaction?”
No rational person would argue that common-sense reforms like raising the minimum age for social media use or restricting smartphone use will harm children, but inaction and exposing the next generation of young people to excessive social media use will likely have serious consequences.
