From parents to policymakers, nearly everyone thinks that social media is causing a mental health crisis—but that’s a one-sided calculation missing context. What’s often left aside is the fact that social media also creates immense benefits. The best way to think about social media and mental health is through a magnifying lens, where both the costs and benefits are heightened.
Unfortunately, most policies being proposed are entirely shaped by the negative perceptions that academics and researchers have highlighted. An example illustrating this perspective is Jonathan Haidt’s assertion that evaluating social media’s influence solely at the individual level diminishes its true significance, as social media primarily operates through a broader ‘network effect,’ an economic concept that means social media becomes more valuable when more people use it.
Consider that eating too much sugar is a problem that improves by reducing its consumption. The less a person eats sugar, the more beneficial it is for that person, as they become healthier. These are dose-response effects and can be accurately seen at the individual level.
However, Haidt argues, if a person decides to quit social media because they have become aware that they are experiencing negative effects, the change won’t necessarily lead to an improvement. When quitting social media, the person also excludes themselves from interacting with their peers, possibly aggravating their condition; hence, the negative network effects. Haidt argues this has been the case with smartphone devices and social media apps since they became widespread.
But Haidt is only considering one part of the analysis, because network effects do not only work in one direction—they also amplify the benefits, as the research has shown. A Harvard study from the School of Public Health analyzed the effects of social well-being, positive mental health, and self-rated health by looking at how much social media is routinely used and to what degree users are emotionally connected. The study found that routinely using social media and interacting with other people’s content is associated with positive effects on all three aspects. These positive effects can be seen as the result of building wider social networks and breaking down distance barriers, which are examples of beneficial network effects. Only when isolating the emotional connections did social media have negative effects.
Or consider a survey from last year by Pew Research, where they found that one of the strongest aspects of social media for teens is the impact it has on their friendships and relationships. The survey showed that 30 percent of teens saw social media as favorable for their friendships, while only 7 percent did not. This added to the results that a majority of teens (74 percent) said that social media made them feel more connected with their friends’ lives. These are clear indications that the network effects create many heightened positives too.
The positive impact of social media even outweighs the negatives if we take into account that teens use it for different purposes. Some might use social media for communication and interaction with friends or family, while others might use it passively, such as for doomscrolling or social comparison. These are inherently different uses where the positive network effects are evident in the former users.
Considering this distinction is even more relevant when policy is being proposed. Assuming that network effects work only as Haidt describes them, the most logical solution would be to exclude the whole group of teens so that there are no longer negative network effects when quitting social media. Such a way of thinking is unfortunately being echoed in states like Texas and Florida, which are starting to propose state-level bans on social media for minors. To address the downsides, this approach throws out all the benefits of social media use.
As some of these proposals are being challenged in court, the approach to social media could use a more nuanced analysis. Many policy proposals treat every teen as having the same effect, and this is misguided. The negative effects tell only a one-sided story when the many positives of social media use are ignored. In the end, the discussion feels high-stakes because the attention of network effects remains fixed in the negatives when, in reality, they also magnify the benefits.
Pablo Garcia Quint is a technology policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, follow us on X @ConsumerPal.