Glad to hear a false comparison to something that's actually physically/chemically addictive really resonated with you (a.k.a. affirmed your already existing beliefs in this moral panic).

If we step back and look at this rationally though, can anybody point me to any peer reviewed studies (the actual studies, not clickbait articles written based off the studies) showing that social media is anywhere near as physically harmful or addictive as cigarettes?

I'm totally open to the idea that engagement algorithms are inflaming social division. I'm less convinced that the children are the ones being harmed however. I think its the adults who grew up in a media mono-culture where the default was trust are the ones more susceptible to negative outcomes.

When things change, the young are the ones more likely to adapt.

▲

nicolix 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12322333/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27247125/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12042983/

▲

tim-projects 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the issues with social media is it's difficult to quantify the harm caused, and that holds true for any form of mental or emotional harm. One form that definitely can be quantified are the social media moderators who have to sit all day reviewing explicit and illegal content.

I also think you need to review what you consider the barrier to entry for harm. If you imply that there needs to be chemical or physical evidence - congrats you just threw out most harassment cases.

▲

pembrook 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes raising the barriers to what we consider harm is a good thing. Also, nobody is talking about harassment, that's already illegal.

In modern developed economies we don't have a problem with the barriers to harm being too low. We've got the opposite problem, where we've become deathly afraid of trivial imagined harm, resulting in us basically never doing anything and regulating new things out of existence (just look at the housing issue in cities in pretty much every developed country for example).

	▲	tim-projects 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> trivial imagined harm No harm is trivial. And imagined harm is not harm - it's lying (and should be dealt with appropriately). As a society setting laws on what level of harm should be justified without action - is obviously up for debate. But denying genuine suffering never should be. And what's genuine is up to the individual. You can't go around telling people they aren't suffering in a just society.

▲

micromacrofoot 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Facebook ran its own internal study that showed that Instagram was causing mental health issues in teens, and then tried to bury it.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-...

▲

sofixa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> If we step back and look at this rationally though, can anybody point me to any peer reviewed studies (the actual studies, not clickbait articles written based off the studies) showing that social media is anywhere near as physically harmful or addictive as cigarettes?

First thing that comes to mind, not exactly what you're asking for but still pretty clearly "physical harm": Facebook enabled the Rohingya genocide with their algorithm fueling the hatred's spread. They knew it's happening and ignored it. Yes, genocidal hatred can be spread via other means just as well (like radio in Germany, Rwanda), but that doesn't absolve Facebook from the blame, like you wouldn't be absolved if you started a radio station to spread hateful propaganda encouraging violence.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya...

https://www.asc.upenn.edu/research/centers/milton-wolf-semin...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/01/united-states...