Despite political warnings and popular books claiming otherwise, the evidence linking youth mental health struggles to social media is weak at best—and dangerously distracting at worst
What a terrible, misleading and harmful POS article. Read Jonathan Haidt, talk to a few parents of happy kids who restricted or delayed cell phones, join a parental chat or two to understand what's actually happening and what works or doesn't. The author seats in a stuffy office, reads misleading studies and thinks he understands the world. Shame on you.
I am one of those teachers. We have over the past two years at my high school adopted a zero-personal device policy. It has certainly made a difference in the classroom, some of which has been due to those who got upset at the policy's adoption unenrolling from our public school. I hope the door didn't hit them on the way out.
It is too soon to tell, however, if overall mental health will be affected by the policy change. I have to say, I think the so-called epidemic in mental disorders among teens is greatly enabled by administrators who pathologize bad behavior among teens. These administrators have rarely been classroom teachers; most were guidance counselors. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We haven't had these in the past year. It's been awesome. One is slated to return, and I predict a sudden deterioration in "mental health" (read: bad behavior diagnosed as some sort of illness and excused).
On another note, I am 64years old and have seen many panics and hysterias come and go-- song lyrics! satanic cults! video games! So I'm more than a little jaded.
This is something that needs a lot more attention. In every single parent group I’m a part of, any time a parent describes a behavioral concern in their child or another child, the overwhelming response is to diagnose that child with ADHD or autism or some other “neurodivergence.” Most of these kids do not need medication or therapy, and they certainly don’t need society to simply tolerate their nonsense. They need DISCIPLINE. They need their parents and society to expect more of them, to teach them how to rise to the challenge, and to hold them accountable when they do not. We are raising a generation of terrors who blame all their bad behavior on innate and unchangeable “disorders.”
I have been a high school teacher since 1983. I do think bullying has become much more pervasive now that it can take place 24/7 and not just in places teens congregate, such as schools, during the school day. And of course bullying can certainly lead to anxiety, depression and suicide.
However, I also believe the so-called epidemic in mental disorders among teens is greatly enabled by school administrators who pathologize bad behavior among teens. These administrators have rarely been classroom teachers; most were guidance counselors. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We haven't had these in the past year. It's been awesome. One is slated to return, and I predict a sudden deterioration in "mental health" (read: bad behavior diagnosed as some sort of illness and excused).
On another note, I have seen many panics and hysterias come and go-- violent song lyrics! satanic cults! video games! So, I'm more than a little jaded.
Multiple critiques have identified serious problems with Ferguson’s meta-analyses. Experts argue that his reviews dilute or omit the positive findings from numerous experimental studies showing that reducing social media use leads to improvements in depression and anxiety, especially among adolescents. In fact, as of 2024, at least 17 published experiments overwhelmingly support the mental health benefits of reducing social media time
Ferguson's meta-analysis obscures social media impacts on mental health because it is based on an invalid design and erroneous data.
Suicide rates among teen girls have surged in recent years. According to CDC data, female teen suicides in the U.S. hit a 40-year high in 2015, and the overall rate of teen suicide has risen dramatically over the past decade, paralleling the rapid adoption of social media platforms.
A landmark 10-year BYU study found a clear correlation between social media use and suicide risk among girls. Girls who spent two to three hours per day on social media at age 13—and increased their use over time—were at significantly higher clinical risk for suicide as young adults. The study found this risk pattern was not present for boys.
Girls appear especially vulnerable to the negative effects of social media, including cyberbullying, social comparison, and sensitivity to negative feedback or lack of online connection. These factors are amplified by the relational and emotional dynamics of adolescent female friendships, which can be intensified and distorted in online environments.
Jonathan Haidt and other researchers have documented that rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm among girls began to spike in the early 2010s, closely following the widespread adoption of smartphones and social media apps like Instagram and Snapchat. Haidt’s work, along with multiple studies, supports the conclusion that heavy social media use—especially three or more hours per day—raises the risk of mental health problems and suicidality, particularly for girls.
while suicide rates have not risen equally across all demographics, the increase among adolescent girls is both dramatic and strongly correlated with the rise of social media use!
Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (2024), is a comprehensive investigation into the sharp rise in depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide among adolescents since the early 2010s. Haidt identifies the transition from a “play-based childhood” to a “phone-based childhood”—driven by smartphones and social media—as a key factor behind these trends
Jonathan Haidt also co-authored The Coddling of the American Mind with Greg Lukianoff. This influential book examines how well-intentioned but misguided ideas—like “what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker”—along with changes in parenting, education, and the rise of social media, have contributed to increased anxiety, depression, and fragility among young people, especially on college campuses
BTW, Haidt specifically addressed a number of flaws in the Lancet study, which is the main premise of this article. Someone with a PhD should do a bit of studying of his own before spewing nonsense:
And just in time, there is a new study out showing that "most experts agree" (the phrase, which has really lost its luster, but still) about the harms of phones and social media:
I'm so tired of our enslavement to researchers. Parents know when their children have been affected, and they don't need anyone else to prove it. Sigh.
From observation (and a fair amount of reading) as a parent, my impression is: The damage is already done by the time kids get to high school.
By that time they've spent years glued to screens of all sorts, and it's that fixation that causes the most damage, especially if it's early on. Handing a toddler an iPhone so they don't get bored in line (or wherever) is the first step to cognitive addiction and directly circumvents learning by doing, touching and exploring. Aside from better nutrition, our brains are no different they were 100,000 years ago, when ALL learning was by observing and doing.
Like preaching not giving into peer pressure (after years of being told to "get along" and "why can't you be more like...) suddenly telling teens to dial back their screen and social media usage is a decade late at least. Mental health and emotional resilience for teens STARTS at age 3, not at age 13. It's strange so few adults have put this together...
Impulse control? That happens at ages 1-3 mostly, and then is refined in the 3-5 years following. Learning to be ok in "boring" situations? For one thing, most adults already are terrible at that, but trying to tell a teen to just "power through" twelve years after he/she were given a tablet loaded with games and "educational" apps is ludicrous.
Lastly: These studies are too short and don't show what might happen if phones were replaced with other activities. Merely shutting off some social apps for a week or two (or a month even) is obviously not going to provide long-term positive results.
And as to more behavior issues in school? Wow! So what we expose here are all the kids who are otherwise being ignored by their teachers and allowed to spend time not learning in class. That is what needs addressing, not declaring that phones are actually "helping" in the class.
Totally agree on all points. Taking phones away for a couple weeks for a study, after a kid’s world and been saturated by them all their lives, is not going to show anything meaningful. Give it a minute!
"In some ways, it is a story of adult fears projected onto teenagers. In others, it's a cautionary tale of moral panic distracting us from deeper, systemic problems."
This is the modus operandi of parents and civic leaders wanting an easy taste of fame and political control, and has been since at least in the 19th century. Remove "social media" and replace it with "rock and roll" or "cartoons" or some author cause celebre du jour, and you will see that this sort of outdated and useless playbook for making life "better" for children no longer serves any true purpose, if it ever did.
My guess is that when the school saw the increase in fights and aggression it’s because the kids were going through withdrawal from their cell phones. Give them enough time away from their phones and their behavior will normalize again. Study have shown improved test scores after removing cell phone accessibility during the day. You’ve seen the videos of the two-year-old going into what looks like a psychotic episode when the adult takes their screen away from them right? Children don’t need access to the EMF and other dangerous side effects of having those phones on their person all day long either. There is definitely a correlation in behavior and health and cell phone usage.
There are many issues: use in schools, use outside of school at certain ages (there, unless the whole community does it, the non social media users are excluded), phones Vs platforms schools sometimes require, etc.
I only have anecdotal evidence -getting a bunch of kids together only to have them sit apart and read their phones does not seem as beneficial as them being together without the phones.
I expect we will all benefit from your combined analysis and discussion.
The author mentions “cultural forces “ as a root problem—isn’t it obvious that devices and social media are major “cultural forces” in these times? Furthermore, the waves from the impacts of AI will be crashing on our shores soon, too.
I find it fascinating that people who might normally be up in arms if someone locked a child in a room with no windows and had total strangers scream abuse at them for 24+ hours straight seem to be OK with social media. If we're honest, it's really the same thing. And yes, I do remember the PMRC and the whole "D&D=satanism" panics in the 1980s. But social media is different. It's designed to be addictive, there are few limits on it, and it's everywhere. Unlike earlier panics, social media has become more of an "opt out" (and people look at you like you're disturbed if you do) as opposed to an "opt in."
While your post is well-written and raises valid concerns about oversimplification, it overlooks a growing body of peer-reviewed research pointing to meaningful—if complex—links between adolescent mental health and social media use. Meta-analyses and large-scale studies do show small but significant associations, particularly for girls and vulnerable youth.
The U.S. Surgeon General, the CDC, and multiple longitudinal studies have all flagged social media as a contributing factor—not the sole cause, but part of a broader landscape of risk. To call this a “moral panic” dismisses the lived experiences of countless families and young people.
Of course, correlation isn’t causation. But we can acknowledge multiple factors—family instability, economic pressure, and algorithmic influence—without pretending one cancels out the others.
It's not a panic to ask hard questions about the digital environments we’ve built. It’s responsible public health.
I stopped by the comment section before reading. A relief to see that so many are suspicious of these conclusions. Maybe it’s my age, but I’ve been in education for 25 years and it is glaringly obvious that social media has disrupted social connections and harms mental health.
It's not just social media. The Internet is like a sewer pipe you let flow into your home and your children's palms. Pornography may have a greater impact than social media, but it's all sewage. It may not impact all teen's mental health, but it exacerbates the problems of the vulnerable. THis article seemed like a disservice to parents everywhere.
The author writes "Two major meta-analyses—studies that aggregate many experiments—have concluded that cutting back on social media use does not conclusively lead to meaningful improvements in *youth* mental health. [emphasis added]" However, upon following the two links supplied in this sentence, it is obvious that these meta-analyses are primarily aggregating experiments involving *adults*. I have not followed other links in the article, but this already is enough to make me lose confidence in all the author's claims.
The woke keep coming up with things we should fear and panic over, which is a distraction from their failed public policies. Its a cover up, whether done consciously or subconsciously, from the real negative influences on successful lives. Yes, a good family with a father and a mother is more likely to help children grow into capable adults than the government taking the place of a father. Teaching methods for individual agency such as doing hard work and helping others works better than teaching some people are inherently bad because of the color of their skin or their sexual preferences. But the woke don't want to hear it. Their minds are made up so they don't want to discuss it. Good article. I didn't even fit social media hysteria into their fear mongering until you pointed it out.
I agree that strong families and good values are incredibly important for raising resilient kids. But even the best family environment can’t fully shield young people from the unique dangers of today’s digital world.
Social media platforms are designed by experts in psychology to capture attention and trigger emotional reactions—often in ways that bypass parental guidance and traditional values. That’s why we’re seeing a sharp rise in anxiety, depression, and even suicide among teens from all kinds of homes, including those with supportive, two-parent families (CDC YRBS 2021; Haidt, The Anxious Generation).
This isn’t about “woke fear-mongering”—it’s about recognizing that new technology brings new challenges. If we want to truly protect and empower the next generation, we need to understand how these platforms work and help kids build healthy digital habits, alongside strong morals and family support.
Moreover, the criticisms of Christopher Ferguson’s work are not about ideology, but about scientific rigor. Multiple experts have pointed out that his studies often use flawed designs and overlook a growing body of evidence showing that reducing social media use leads to measurable improvements in teen mental health. Jonathan Haidt, for example, is not “woke”—his work is respected by people with a wide range of views, and he draws on robust data to show the risks, especially for young girls.
Jonathan Haidt’s recent book, The Anxious Generation, and his testimony before Congress, present robust evidence that heavy social media use—especially three or more hours daily—raises the risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm, particularly for girls
In short, the mental health crisis among youth is real, well-documented, and not a partisan invention. It deserves serious attention, not dismissal as a political distraction.
Rising youth suicide rates, especially among girls, have occurred across all types of families and backgrounds. Many of those affected had supportive parents and stable homes. Haidt’s synthesis of international data shows that the mental health crisis is widespread and affects youth from all kinds of families. He emphasizes that digital risks—especially social media—overwhelm even those with strong family support.
So, the real challenge is not about “family values,” but about recognizing that young people are at risk from the risks posed by today’s digital landscape.
What a terrible, misleading and harmful POS article. Read Jonathan Haidt, talk to a few parents of happy kids who restricted or delayed cell phones, join a parental chat or two to understand what's actually happening and what works or doesn't. The author seats in a stuffy office, reads misleading studies and thinks he understands the world. Shame on you.
Better yet talk with teachers who have been in the classrooms before and after cell phones were banned.
I am one of those teachers. We have over the past two years at my high school adopted a zero-personal device policy. It has certainly made a difference in the classroom, some of which has been due to those who got upset at the policy's adoption unenrolling from our public school. I hope the door didn't hit them on the way out.
It is too soon to tell, however, if overall mental health will be affected by the policy change. I have to say, I think the so-called epidemic in mental disorders among teens is greatly enabled by administrators who pathologize bad behavior among teens. These administrators have rarely been classroom teachers; most were guidance counselors. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We haven't had these in the past year. It's been awesome. One is slated to return, and I predict a sudden deterioration in "mental health" (read: bad behavior diagnosed as some sort of illness and excused).
On another note, I am 64years old and have seen many panics and hysterias come and go-- song lyrics! satanic cults! video games! So I'm more than a little jaded.
This is something that needs a lot more attention. In every single parent group I’m a part of, any time a parent describes a behavioral concern in their child or another child, the overwhelming response is to diagnose that child with ADHD or autism or some other “neurodivergence.” Most of these kids do not need medication or therapy, and they certainly don’t need society to simply tolerate their nonsense. They need DISCIPLINE. They need their parents and society to expect more of them, to teach them how to rise to the challenge, and to hold them accountable when they do not. We are raising a generation of terrors who blame all their bad behavior on innate and unchangeable “disorders.”
I have been a high school teacher since 1983. I do think bullying has become much more pervasive now that it can take place 24/7 and not just in places teens congregate, such as schools, during the school day. And of course bullying can certainly lead to anxiety, depression and suicide.
However, I also believe the so-called epidemic in mental disorders among teens is greatly enabled by school administrators who pathologize bad behavior among teens. These administrators have rarely been classroom teachers; most were guidance counselors. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We haven't had these in the past year. It's been awesome. One is slated to return, and I predict a sudden deterioration in "mental health" (read: bad behavior diagnosed as some sort of illness and excused).
On another note, I have seen many panics and hysterias come and go-- violent song lyrics! satanic cults! video games! So, I'm more than a little jaded.
Multiple critiques have identified serious problems with Ferguson’s meta-analyses. Experts argue that his reviews dilute or omit the positive findings from numerous experimental studies showing that reducing social media use leads to improvements in depression and anxiety, especially among adolescents. In fact, as of 2024, at least 17 published experiments overwhelmingly support the mental health benefits of reducing social media time
Ferguson's meta-analysis obscures social media impacts on mental health because it is based on an invalid design and erroneous data.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5224958
https://shoresofacademia.substack.com/p/fatally-flawed-social-media-experiments
Suicide rates among teen girls have surged in recent years. According to CDC data, female teen suicides in the U.S. hit a 40-year high in 2015, and the overall rate of teen suicide has risen dramatically over the past decade, paralleling the rapid adoption of social media platforms.
A landmark 10-year BYU study found a clear correlation between social media use and suicide risk among girls. Girls who spent two to three hours per day on social media at age 13—and increased their use over time—were at significantly higher clinical risk for suicide as young adults. The study found this risk pattern was not present for boys.
Girls appear especially vulnerable to the negative effects of social media, including cyberbullying, social comparison, and sensitivity to negative feedback or lack of online connection. These factors are amplified by the relational and emotional dynamics of adolescent female friendships, which can be intensified and distorted in online environments.
Jonathan Haidt and other researchers have documented that rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm among girls began to spike in the early 2010s, closely following the widespread adoption of smartphones and social media apps like Instagram and Snapchat. Haidt’s work, along with multiple studies, supports the conclusion that heavy social media use—especially three or more hours per day—raises the risk of mental health problems and suicidality, particularly for girls.
while suicide rates have not risen equally across all demographics, the increase among adolescent girls is both dramatic and strongly correlated with the rise of social media use!
Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (2024), is a comprehensive investigation into the sharp rise in depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide among adolescents since the early 2010s. Haidt identifies the transition from a “play-based childhood” to a “phone-based childhood”—driven by smartphones and social media—as a key factor behind these trends
Jonathan Haidt also co-authored The Coddling of the American Mind with Greg Lukianoff. This influential book examines how well-intentioned but misguided ideas—like “what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker”—along with changes in parenting, education, and the rise of social media, have contributed to increased anxiety, depression, and fragility among young people, especially on college campuses
BTW, Haidt specifically addressed a number of flaws in the Lancet study, which is the main premise of this article. Someone with a PhD should do a bit of studying of his own before spewing nonsense:
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/lancet-study-flaws
And just in time, there is a new study out showing that "most experts agree" (the phrase, which has really lost its luster, but still) about the harms of phones and social media:
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-consensus-paper
I'm so tired of our enslavement to researchers. Parents know when their children have been affected, and they don't need anyone else to prove it. Sigh.
From observation (and a fair amount of reading) as a parent, my impression is: The damage is already done by the time kids get to high school.
By that time they've spent years glued to screens of all sorts, and it's that fixation that causes the most damage, especially if it's early on. Handing a toddler an iPhone so they don't get bored in line (or wherever) is the first step to cognitive addiction and directly circumvents learning by doing, touching and exploring. Aside from better nutrition, our brains are no different they were 100,000 years ago, when ALL learning was by observing and doing.
Like preaching not giving into peer pressure (after years of being told to "get along" and "why can't you be more like...) suddenly telling teens to dial back their screen and social media usage is a decade late at least. Mental health and emotional resilience for teens STARTS at age 3, not at age 13. It's strange so few adults have put this together...
Impulse control? That happens at ages 1-3 mostly, and then is refined in the 3-5 years following. Learning to be ok in "boring" situations? For one thing, most adults already are terrible at that, but trying to tell a teen to just "power through" twelve years after he/she were given a tablet loaded with games and "educational" apps is ludicrous.
Lastly: These studies are too short and don't show what might happen if phones were replaced with other activities. Merely shutting off some social apps for a week or two (or a month even) is obviously not going to provide long-term positive results.
And as to more behavior issues in school? Wow! So what we expose here are all the kids who are otherwise being ignored by their teachers and allowed to spend time not learning in class. That is what needs addressing, not declaring that phones are actually "helping" in the class.
Totally agree on all points. Taking phones away for a couple weeks for a study, after a kid’s world and been saturated by them all their lives, is not going to show anything meaningful. Give it a minute!
"In some ways, it is a story of adult fears projected onto teenagers. In others, it's a cautionary tale of moral panic distracting us from deeper, systemic problems."
This is the modus operandi of parents and civic leaders wanting an easy taste of fame and political control, and has been since at least in the 19th century. Remove "social media" and replace it with "rock and roll" or "cartoons" or some author cause celebre du jour, and you will see that this sort of outdated and useless playbook for making life "better" for children no longer serves any true purpose, if it ever did.
My guess is that when the school saw the increase in fights and aggression it’s because the kids were going through withdrawal from their cell phones. Give them enough time away from their phones and their behavior will normalize again. Study have shown improved test scores after removing cell phone accessibility during the day. You’ve seen the videos of the two-year-old going into what looks like a psychotic episode when the adult takes their screen away from them right? Children don’t need access to the EMF and other dangerous side effects of having those phones on their person all day long either. There is definitely a correlation in behavior and health and cell phone usage.
My thought was that they no longer had the cell phones to pacify them.
Once they were removed, the bad behavior that was waiting there all along finally just manifested.
My thought was that they no longer had the cell phones to pacify them.
Once they were removed, the bad behavior that was waiting there all along finally just manifested.
I admire you but on this topic I disagree with you. Haidt and collaborators have addressed some of your arguments - can you please respond to that?
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fundamental-flaws-part-3
There are many issues: use in schools, use outside of school at certain ages (there, unless the whole community does it, the non social media users are excluded), phones Vs platforms schools sometimes require, etc.
I only have anecdotal evidence -getting a bunch of kids together only to have them sit apart and read their phones does not seem as beneficial as them being together without the phones.
I expect we will all benefit from your combined analysis and discussion.
Thank you!
And yes, I don't see a down side to kids not having phones in school...but that's just my opinion....
The author mentions “cultural forces “ as a root problem—isn’t it obvious that devices and social media are major “cultural forces” in these times? Furthermore, the waves from the impacts of AI will be crashing on our shores soon, too.
I find it fascinating that people who might normally be up in arms if someone locked a child in a room with no windows and had total strangers scream abuse at them for 24+ hours straight seem to be OK with social media. If we're honest, it's really the same thing. And yes, I do remember the PMRC and the whole "D&D=satanism" panics in the 1980s. But social media is different. It's designed to be addictive, there are few limits on it, and it's everywhere. Unlike earlier panics, social media has become more of an "opt out" (and people look at you like you're disturbed if you do) as opposed to an "opt in."
While your post is well-written and raises valid concerns about oversimplification, it overlooks a growing body of peer-reviewed research pointing to meaningful—if complex—links between adolescent mental health and social media use. Meta-analyses and large-scale studies do show small but significant associations, particularly for girls and vulnerable youth.
The U.S. Surgeon General, the CDC, and multiple longitudinal studies have all flagged social media as a contributing factor—not the sole cause, but part of a broader landscape of risk. To call this a “moral panic” dismisses the lived experiences of countless families and young people.
Of course, correlation isn’t causation. But we can acknowledge multiple factors—family instability, economic pressure, and algorithmic influence—without pretending one cancels out the others.
It's not a panic to ask hard questions about the digital environments we’ve built. It’s responsible public health.
I stopped by the comment section before reading. A relief to see that so many are suspicious of these conclusions. Maybe it’s my age, but I’ve been in education for 25 years and it is glaringly obvious that social media has disrupted social connections and harms mental health.
It's not just social media. The Internet is like a sewer pipe you let flow into your home and your children's palms. Pornography may have a greater impact than social media, but it's all sewage. It may not impact all teen's mental health, but it exacerbates the problems of the vulnerable. THis article seemed like a disservice to parents everywhere.
LOVE this train of thought! Looks at first to be out of the box, but winds up smack dab in the middle of the box!
The author writes "Two major meta-analyses—studies that aggregate many experiments—have concluded that cutting back on social media use does not conclusively lead to meaningful improvements in *youth* mental health. [emphasis added]" However, upon following the two links supplied in this sentence, it is obvious that these meta-analyses are primarily aggregating experiments involving *adults*. I have not followed other links in the article, but this already is enough to make me lose confidence in all the author's claims.
The woke keep coming up with things we should fear and panic over, which is a distraction from their failed public policies. Its a cover up, whether done consciously or subconsciously, from the real negative influences on successful lives. Yes, a good family with a father and a mother is more likely to help children grow into capable adults than the government taking the place of a father. Teaching methods for individual agency such as doing hard work and helping others works better than teaching some people are inherently bad because of the color of their skin or their sexual preferences. But the woke don't want to hear it. Their minds are made up so they don't want to discuss it. Good article. I didn't even fit social media hysteria into their fear mongering until you pointed it out.
I agree that strong families and good values are incredibly important for raising resilient kids. But even the best family environment can’t fully shield young people from the unique dangers of today’s digital world.
Social media platforms are designed by experts in psychology to capture attention and trigger emotional reactions—often in ways that bypass parental guidance and traditional values. That’s why we’re seeing a sharp rise in anxiety, depression, and even suicide among teens from all kinds of homes, including those with supportive, two-parent families (CDC YRBS 2021; Haidt, The Anxious Generation).
This isn’t about “woke fear-mongering”—it’s about recognizing that new technology brings new challenges. If we want to truly protect and empower the next generation, we need to understand how these platforms work and help kids build healthy digital habits, alongside strong morals and family support.
Moreover, the criticisms of Christopher Ferguson’s work are not about ideology, but about scientific rigor. Multiple experts have pointed out that his studies often use flawed designs and overlook a growing body of evidence showing that reducing social media use leads to measurable improvements in teen mental health. Jonathan Haidt, for example, is not “woke”—his work is respected by people with a wide range of views, and he draws on robust data to show the risks, especially for young girls.
Jonathan Haidt’s recent book, The Anxious Generation, and his testimony before Congress, present robust evidence that heavy social media use—especially three or more hours daily—raises the risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm, particularly for girls
In short, the mental health crisis among youth is real, well-documented, and not a partisan invention. It deserves serious attention, not dismissal as a political distraction.
Rising youth suicide rates, especially among girls, have occurred across all types of families and backgrounds. Many of those affected had supportive parents and stable homes. Haidt’s synthesis of international data shows that the mental health crisis is widespread and affects youth from all kinds of families. He emphasizes that digital risks—especially social media—overwhelm even those with strong family support.
So, the real challenge is not about “family values,” but about recognizing that young people are at risk from the risks posed by today’s digital landscape.