The article literally says facebook aggravates depression. It's in the title. In this context, you can't just argue that taking away facebook doesn't help without reasons not to trust the article.
It's like a headline saying Budweiser fosters alcoholism. Yes, alcoholics will be worse off if they drink Budweiser and yes, Budweiser does in some way foster alcoholism by producing and selling alcohol, but it's a very narrow picture to paint Budweiser as the sole perpetrator, which is heavily implied by the headline.
I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but in this case, singling it out like this is neither fair nor helpful. Just like shutting down Budweiser would do nothing to reduce alcoholism.
I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but in this case, singling it out like this is neither fair nor helpful. Just like shutting down Budweiser would do nothing to reduce alcoholism.