[ergonaught]

Anecdata isn't useful, but each of three children in our family experienced "externally observable" and self-reported improvements to their "mental health" each and every time they were banned from devices they used for "social media time", with immediate regressions/worsening once the bans were over.

You could say maybe they needed better friends, and I wouldn't argue that, but that's three very different teenagers with the same overall "response".

[insane_dreamer]

Again, anecdotal, but as a father of teenage children, there is 0% doubt in my mind that large amounts of social media consumption is detrimental to their development, wellbeing, and academic performance

[pembrook]

Nothing says scientific method like "0% doubt in my mind the hypothesis is true."

[insane_dreamer]

Looks like you missed the word “anecdotal“ at the start of the sentence.

[ghusto]

Every parent already knows this. I wonder why they're trying to disprove it so badly?

[ergonaught]

Because almost everything "everyone knows" is actually false.

As in my own anecdote, our kids probably need better friends. It may not be their social media time that causes problems, but their friend groups coupled with their current state of neurological/psychological development.

ex: I don't have enough information to reliably conclude that "social media" causes their problems. If they had better friends, "social media time" might have improved their "mental health".

[lamontcg]

> Because almost everything "everyone knows" is actually false.

So, jump off a 10-story building with no means of breaking your fall and see how it goes for you.

[Const-me]

Because big tech companies who own these social media platforms have exceptionally deep pockets?

[ahahahahah]

Every parent also already knows that sugar causes hyperactivity.