essay on social media has done more harm than good

Does Social Media Do More Harm Than Good for Society?

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Why I Stopped Playing Wordle and Started Using This Puzzle Website Instead

Why i'm leaving gmail and using this security-focused email service instead, are your productivity tools just cleverly disguised procrastination.

Media has always had the power to influence our society, but it wasn't until the social media boom that we saw it on this scale and magnitude. While it has the potential for good, social media has been also been harmful to society because of how we use it.

Here's how social media is harming our mental health, self-image, communication skills, and society at large—potentially causing more harm than good overall.

Social Media Can Lead to Depression, Anxiety, and Loneliness

The uncontrollable urge to share everyday life with others on social media is starting to have long-term effects. Studies have shown that increased use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok is leading to depression, anxiety, and loneliness.

The COVID-19 pandemic not only pushed more people to the platforms but also caused people to spend unusual amounts of time cruising their feeds. According to Statista , as of 2022, people spend an average of 147 minutes on social media daily. That's more than two hours.

More importantly, science has found that social media can make you sad . Social media platforms have become aware of how to manipulate your brain's reward response to increase engagement and time spent on apps. When you receive positive feedback on a post you made or a picture you uploaded, it releases endorphins. This is what keeps people on the platforms for hours. But it can also lead to increased feelings of anxiety, depression, and loneliness.

Casinos use the same types of tactics to get people to spend more time, and money, on their business. Giving out small wins to keep people coming back but never being able to fulfill their needs. If everyone had a full understanding of this concept, it could lead to healthier social media habits. Problem is, not very many people know how to create a healthy balance.

Communication on Social Media Has a Dark Side

While not everyone on the internet has a hard time communicating in real life, there is still a good portion of introverts who have an easier time talking online. Social media makes it easier for those people to connect with others and learn social cues that could have been missed. This can be especially helpful for people who live in smaller towns and have a deep desire to broaden their horizons.

Three girls communicating using social media

While you can't exactly remain anonymous on social media without creating a fake profile, you can create a whole new persona. This can help people who have a hard time socializing to break out of their shells.

Where social media has gotten into trouble is when these personas get pulled to the dark side. According to Help Guide , about 10 percent of teens report being bullied on social media, and even more claim they have been the recipient of offensive remarks. Being on the receiving end can lead to lower self-esteem and self-image.

It's also hard to express clear and concise communication when only using a keyboard. Language gets lost in translation without more communication clues to give context, like body language. What could have been intended as an innocent remark could be taken personally. This could lead to an argument that could have been avoided if it had been made in person.

Communication on social media still has some maturing to do before it becomes a force for good.

Social Media's Divisive Effect

At no other time in the history of the world has it been easier to connect with someone from around the world as it is today. Social media has had a large part in getting more people in contact with each other. These connections have fostered a whole world of communities that wouldn't have existed without the invention of the internet and social media. To be fair, social media has some positive effects on society .

But at the same time, the ease of finding like-minded people through social media has shown to be just as dangerous as it has been positive. Since its inception, the public has become increasingly aware of just what types of groups were forming in the dark corners of social media. Groups that would threaten the well-being of others were allowed to assemble online.

The 2016 election was controversial for the use of foreign interference through Facebook ads to swing the opinions of the public. The continued disparity between political opinions is a big reason why Americans feel social media is doing more harm than good these days.

The power of social media to influence entire nations has come under the microscope with recent events and other forms of media, like movies. Documentaries like The Social Dilemma have shown exactly what kind of manipulation social media is capable of.

Our dependence on social media is causing large consequences on how we live our lives. Although, the same could potentially be said about any form of media. The only difference is the scale that social media operates on and the instantaneous effect of that power. As a result, we face a dilemma of disinformation, social division spurred by bad-faith actors, and massive influence campaigns driven by social media.

Self-Image Suffers Due to Social Media

We have all gone through periods of comparing ourselves to others, whether it be in school or work. Social media has taken that concept to a whole other level by putting the haves and the have-nots front and center. What started as an honest way to connect with like-minded communities and friends has become a way to sell and buy happiness. Social media has, essentially, turned into a marketing platform.

Facebook, Instagram, and even LinkedIn have all drastically reduced the organic reach of posts with algorithmic timelines. This means fewer and fewer people get to see what you post unless you want to pay for advertising. Only a handful of people, known as influencers, have a massive audience.

And many of them have financial reasons for their posts. They sell products by filling their social feeds with good experiences and amazing places. This leads to a majority of people on the platform trying to make their lives seem just as good. That, in turn, can lead to severe loneliness and pressure from always comparing your life to others without knowing the context behind the pictures.

The Future of Social Media in Society

Social media, in and of itself, is not bad or harmful to society. What makes it harmful is how we use it and how we feel about ourselves while using it.

Right now, that pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction, but all it takes is enough people choosing to use it for the right reasons.

Social Media
Social Media Tips

Essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good

Social media harms us more than helps.

Social media has changed how people live their lives and has given them good and bad benefits. It has some advantages, but it is bad to spend a lot of time on it.

It Can Be Addictive

Social media can change the way the brain works, making people want to use it more and more. Some people spend so much time on social media that it harms their work, school, and the people around them. It can also make people feel worse about themselves if they see images of people who seem to have perfect lives.

It Can Have a Negative Impact on Mental Health

Spending too much time on social media can increase the chance of depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems. This is because social media can make people feel isolated, left out, and like they don’t measure up to others.

It Can Be Used to Spread Misinformation

Social media is often used to spread false news and information. This can mislead people and cause conflicts. Fake news can trick people into trusting things that aren’t true, making them think or act in unintended ways. Spreading false news can also make it harder to solve problems like climate change.

250 Words Essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good

Introduction, time wasting.

Firstly, social media can eat up a lot of your time. Have you ever gone online to check something quickly, only to end up spending hours looking at different things? This happens to a lot of people. Instead of doing homework, playing outside, or spending time with family, they waste hours on social media.

Privacy Issues

Next, when you use social media, you share a lot of personal information. This can be dangerous because not everyone online is nice or honest. Sometimes, people can use your information in bad ways, like stealing your identity or bullying you.

Unrealistic Expectations

Social media often shows perfect pictures and stories that make life look easy and always happy. This can make us feel bad about our own lives. We start to think our lives are not as good because they do not look like the lives we see online. This is not true, but it can make us feel sad or not good enough.

Even though social media has some good parts, like helping us stay in touch with friends and family, it can also cause a lot of problems. It’s important to remember to spend less time online and more time in the real world, doing things that make us truly happy.

500 Words Essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good

Social media: more harm than good.

Social media has become an integral part of our lives. We use it to connect with friends and family, share news and information, and express our opinions. But is social media really doing more harm than good?

Negative Impact on Mental Health

Spread of misinformation.

Another concern about social media is the spread of misinformation. Social media platforms are full of fake news and conspiracy theories. This can be dangerous because it can lead people to make poor decisions. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lot of misinformation about the virus and the vaccines. This led some people to refuse to get vaccinated, which put themselves and others at risk.

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is another major problem on social media. Cyberbullying is the use of electronic devices to bully or harass someone. This can include sending hurtful or threatening messages, posting embarrassing photos or videos, or spreading rumors. Cyberbullying can have a devastating impact on victims. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicide.

Privacy Concerns

Social media can be a useful tool, but it’s important to be aware of its potential harms. We need to be mindful of how much time we spend on social media, and we need to be critical of the information we see. We also need to be careful about what information we share online. By taking these precautions, we can minimize the harms of social media and maximize its benefits.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Social Media Does More Harm Than Good Argumentative Essay

Social media has become a defining facet of modern life, shaping our interactions, perceptions, and decision-making processes. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram were initially designed to foster global connections, creating a virtual space for conversation, collaboration, and cultural exchange. However, the question arises: does social media do more harm than good? This essay will delve into the multiple layers of social media’s impact, presenting an argumentative discourse on how its pervasive influence may be causing more harm than we realize.

Table of Contents

The Dark Side of Social Media: An Argumentative Essay

Social media: a double-edged sword.

In the fast-paced digital age, social media has emerged as a prominent communication platform. While it has undoubtedly brought people closer, it has also sparked numerous debates regarding its influence on society. One such pressing issue is the argument that social media does more harm than good.

The Addictive Nature of Social Media

Social media, with its constant notifications, has an addictive pull that can consume a significant portion of our daily lives. This addiction often results in individuals spending less time on interpersonal relationships, thereby leading to a breakdown in communication. Face-to-face conversations are replaced by virtual interactions, which may not offer the same emotional depth and understanding.

The Detrimental Impact on Communication Skills and Livelihood

The pervasiveness of social media has led to drastic changes in communication styles. The use of abbreviations and emojis encourages a form of shorthand that can impede proper language use and comprehension. This could potentially affect the way we communicate in formal settings like workplaces, leading to misunderstandings and even job loss.

A Breeding Ground for Hate and Insecurities

Social media platforms are often used for spreading hate or offensive content. Cyberbullying is rampant, causing emotional turmoil among users, particularly teenagers. These platforms can exacerbate feelings of insecurity, as users often compare their lives with the seemingly perfect lives portrayed by others.

The Erosion of Self-Esteem and Authenticity

Social media encourages users to create a ‘perfect’ version of their lives, often leading to in authenticity. This constant pursuit of perfection can significantly decrease self-esteem, as users may feel inadequate when comparing their reality to the embellished lives of others.

The Threat to Privacy

Finally, privacy issues are a significant concern in the realm of social media. Personal information can easily be accessed and misused, leading to potential harm. Additionally, constant exposure to others’ lives can lead to emotional self-harm, such as feelings of inadequacy and jealousy.

In conclusion, while social media can be a powerful tool for connection and information sharing, we need to be aware of the potential harm it can cause. As individuals, we must strive to use these platforms responsibly, ensuring we do not allow them to consume our lives, erode our self-esteem, or infringe upon our privacy.

Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.

Science News

Social media harms teens’ mental health, mounting evidence shows. what now.

Understanding what is going on in teens’ minds is necessary for targeted policy suggestions

A teen scrolls through social media alone on her phone.

Most teens use social media, often for hours on end. Some social scientists are confident that such use is harming their mental health. Now they want to pinpoint what explains the link.

Carol Yepes/Getty Images

Increasing rigor

Concerns over the effects of social media use in children have been circulating for years, resulting in a massive body of scientific literature. But those mostly correlational studies could not show if teen social media use was harming mental health or if teens with mental health problems were using more social media.

Moreover, the findings from such studies were often inconclusive, or the effects on mental health so small as to be inconsequential. In one study that received considerable media attention, psychologists Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski combined data from three surveys to see if they could find a link between technology use, including social media, and reduced well-being. The duo gauged the well-being of over 355,000 teenagers by focusing on questions around depression, suicidal thinking and self-esteem.

Digital technology use was associated with a slight decrease in adolescent well-being , Orben, now of the University of Cambridge, and Przybylski, of the University of Oxford, reported in 2019 in Nature Human Behaviour . But the duo downplayed that finding, noting that researchers have observed similar drops in adolescent well-being associated with drinking milk, going to the movies or eating potatoes.

Holes have begun to appear in that narrative thanks to newer, more rigorous studies.

In one longitudinal study, researchers — including Orben and Przybylski — used survey data on social media use and well-being from over 17,400 teens and young adults to look at how individuals’ responses to a question gauging life satisfaction changed between 2011 and 2018. And they dug into how the responses varied by gender, age and time spent on social media.

Social media use was associated with a drop in well-being among teens during certain developmental periods, chiefly puberty and young adulthood, the team reported in 2022 in Nature Communications . That translated to lower well-being scores around ages 11 to 13 for girls and ages 14 to 15 for boys. Both groups also reported a drop in well-being around age 19. Moreover, among the older teens, the team found evidence for the Goldilocks Hypothesis: the idea that both too much and too little time spent on social media can harm mental health.

“There’s hardly any effect if you look over everybody. But if you look at specific age groups, at particularly what [Orben] calls ‘windows of sensitivity’ … you see these clear effects,” says L.J. Shrum, a consumer psychologist at HEC Paris who was not involved with this research. His review of studies related to teen social media use and mental health is forthcoming in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research.

Cause and effect

That longitudinal study hints at causation, researchers say. But one of the clearest ways to pin down cause and effect is through natural or quasi-experiments. For these in-the-wild experiments, researchers must identify situations where the rollout of a societal “treatment” is staggered across space and time. They can then compare outcomes among members of the group who received the treatment to those still in the queue — the control group.

That was the approach Makarin and his team used in their study of Facebook. The researchers homed in on the staggered rollout of Facebook across 775 college campuses from 2004 to 2006. They combined that rollout data with student responses to the National College Health Assessment, a widely used survey of college students’ mental and physical health.

The team then sought to understand if those survey questions captured diagnosable mental health problems. Specifically, they had roughly 500 undergraduate students respond to questions both in the National College Health Assessment and in validated screening tools for depression and anxiety. They found that mental health scores on the assessment predicted scores on the screenings. That suggested that a drop in well-being on the college survey was a good proxy for a corresponding increase in diagnosable mental health disorders.

Compared with campuses that had not yet gained access to Facebook, college campuses with Facebook experienced a 2 percentage point increase in the number of students who met the diagnostic criteria for anxiety or depression, the team found.

When it comes to showing a causal link between social media use in teens and worse mental health, “that study really is the crown jewel right now,” says Cunningham, who was not involved in that research.

A need for nuance

The social media landscape today is vastly different than the landscape of 20 years ago. Facebook is now optimized for maximum addiction, Shrum says, and other newer platforms, such as Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok, have since copied and built on those features. Paired with the ubiquity of social media in general, the negative effects on mental health may well be larger now.

Moreover, social media research tends to focus on young adults — an easier cohort to study than minors. That needs to change, Cunningham says. “Most of us are worried about our high school kids and younger.”

And so, researchers must pivot accordingly. Crucially, simple comparisons of social media users and nonusers no longer make sense. As Orben and Przybylski’s 2022 work suggested, a teen not on social media might well feel worse than one who briefly logs on.

Researchers must also dig into why, and under what circumstances, social media use can harm mental health, Cunningham says. Explanations for this link abound. For instance, social media is thought to crowd out other activities or increase people’s likelihood of comparing themselves unfavorably with others. But big data studies, with their reliance on existing surveys and statistical analyses, cannot address those deeper questions. “These kinds of papers, there’s nothing you can really ask … to find these plausible mechanisms,” Cunningham says.

One ongoing effort to understand social media use from this more nuanced vantage point is the SMART Schools project out of the University of Birmingham in England. Pedagogical expert Victoria Goodyear and her team are comparing mental and physical health outcomes among children who attend schools that have restricted cell phone use to those attending schools without such a policy. The researchers described the protocol of that study of 30 schools and over 1,000 students in the July BMJ Open.

Goodyear and colleagues are also combining that natural experiment with qualitative research. They met with 36 five-person focus groups each consisting of all students, all parents or all educators at six of those schools. The team hopes to learn how students use their phones during the day, how usage practices make students feel, and what the various parties think of restrictions on cell phone use during the school day.

Talking to teens and those in their orbit is the best way to get at the mechanisms by which social media influences well-being — for better or worse, Goodyear says. Moving beyond big data to this more personal approach, however, takes considerable time and effort. “Social media has increased in pace and momentum very, very quickly,” she says. “And research takes a long time to catch up with that process.”

Until that catch-up occurs, though, researchers cannot dole out much advice. “What guidance could we provide to young people, parents and schools to help maintain the positives of social media use?” Goodyear asks. “There’s not concrete evidence yet.”

‘Turning to Stone’ paints rocks as storytellers and mentors

A Victorian-era book titled Mohun is propped up to show it's deep yellow cover, which is decorated by a paler flower with green leaves and vines.

Old books can have unsafe levels of chromium, but readers’ risk is low

Astronauts Sunita Williams and Butch Wilmore float in the International Space Station.

Astronauts actually get stuck in space all the time

digital art of an unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP)

Scientists are getting serious about UFOs. Here’s why

abstract person with wavy colors flowing in and out of brain

‘Then I Am Myself the World’ ponders what it means to be conscious

A horizontal still from the movie 'Twisters' a man and a woman stand next to each other in a field, backs to the camera, and share a look while an active tornado is nearby.

Twisters asks if you can 'tame' a tornado. We have the answer

caravans in Northampton, England, surrounded by floodwater

The world has water problems. This book has solutions

Art of people walking around beside rulers

Does social status shape height?

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

Social media use can be positive for mental health and well-being

January 6, 2020— Mesfin Awoke Bekalu , research scientist in the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, discusses a new study he co-authored on associations between social media use and mental health and well-being.

What is healthy vs. potentially problematic social media use?

Our study has brought preliminary evidence to answer this question. Using a nationally representative sample, we assessed the association of two dimensions of social media use—how much it’s routinely used and how emotionally connected users are to the platforms—with three health-related outcomes: social well-being, positive mental health, and self-rated health.

We found that routine social media use—for example, using social media as part of everyday routine and responding to content that others share—is positively associated with all three health outcomes. Emotional connection to social media—for example, checking apps excessively out of fear of missing out, being disappointed about or feeling disconnected from friends when not logged into social media—is negatively associated with all three outcomes.

In more general terms, these findings suggest that as long as we are mindful users, routine use may not in itself be a problem. Indeed, it could be beneficial.

For those with unhealthy social media use, behavioral interventions may help. For example, programs that develop “effortful control” skills—the ability to self-regulate behavior—have been widely shown to be useful in dealing with problematic Internet and social media use.

We’re used to hearing that social media use is harmful to mental health and well-being, particularly for young people. Did it surprise you to find that it can have positive effects?

The findings go against what some might expect, which is intriguing. We know that having a strong social network is associated with positive mental health and well-being. Routine social media use may compensate for diminishing face-to-face social interactions in people’s busy lives. Social media may provide individuals with a platform that overcomes barriers of distance and time, allowing them to connect and reconnect with others and thereby expand and strengthen their in-person networks and interactions. Indeed, there is some empirical evidence supporting this.

On the other hand, a growing body of research has demonstrated that social media use is negatively associated with mental health and well-being, particularly among young people—for example, it may contribute to increased risk of depression and anxiety symptoms.

Our findings suggest that the ways that people are using social media may have more of an impact on their mental health and well-being than just the frequency and duration of their use.

What disparities did you find in the ways that social media use benefits and harms certain populations? What concerns does this raise?

My co-authors Rachel McCloud , Vish Viswanath , and I found that the benefits and harms associated with social media use varied across demographic, socioeconomic, and racial population sub-groups. Specifically, while the benefits were generally associated with younger age, better education, and being white, the harms were associated with older age, less education, and being a racial minority. Indeed, these findings are consistent with the body of work on communication inequalities and health disparities that our lab, the Viswanath lab , has documented over the past 15 or so years. We know that education, income, race, and ethnicity influence people’s access to, and ability to act on, health information from media, including the Internet. The concern is that social media may perpetuate those differences.

— Amy Roeder

Social Networking

The harm done by social media, many social problems have been magnified by social media..

Posted August 23, 2023 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

Social media has many benefits, but it can also pose serious risks to people's mental and physical health.
Young people are at especially high risk of loneliness, depression, and other negative effects.
It may be worth considering whether to ration social media use or avoid it altogether.

New technologies often invoke unreasonable fears. Technology is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Yet, social media has disrupted modern societies in many ways, some of them harmful.

In earlier posts, The Human Beast highlighted some of the major harms social media poses to our psychological health.

Mental Health Problems: Depression, Suicide, Narcissism, Eating Disorders, Loneliness

The use of social media has been implicated in a broad range of psychological problems (1). Many of these are on the rise among younger generations who grew up using YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and many other social media sites.

Users share personal information that leads to evaluations, whether a contributor is “liked,” “followed,” “retweeted,” or gets “swiped right.” Such immediate feedback appeals to narcissists who use positive evaluations to burnish their egos. Negative evaluations can be a great source of anxiety , particularly for young people who lack the maturity to cope with them.

Young people are particularly sensitive to evaluations based on personal appearance, and this could explain why the use of social media is associated with an increased risk of eating disorders.

During the pandemic, many of these problems reached a head because real-world social interactions were curtailed.

Recent years have witnessed alarming rises in teenage depression and suicide that are associated with the increased use of social media. Elementary school children who use social media exhibit attention problems, leading to the suggestion that they delay getting phones.

The Surgeon General’s Report on Loneliness found that people who are lonely spend more time on social media. This does not mean that being involved in online communities contributed to their loneliness, but it does indicate that social media is not a cure for feeling isolated in the same way that real-world interaction is. Loneliness is very bad for our health, packing the punch of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

Although the impact of social media on psychological health looks bad, it might be argued that social media can enable self-help groups and can foster social connections among people around the globe. The reality of such benefits does not neutralize the dangerous social consequences of these sites, whether it is spawning false conspiracy theories, creating investment manias, or fomenting genocide.

Political Division: The Facebook Genocide

In 2016, Myanmar was new to the Internet, and for most people, Facebook was the only site they accessed. What they read there was accepted as trustworthy. Unfortunately, they read anti-Rohingya propaganda that fomented a pogrom against this ethnic group.

While any such genocidal event has multiple causes, Amnesty International claimed that if there had been no Facebook in the country, there would have been no genocide , and the government temporarily blocked Facebook in an effort to reduce violence.

Hate-filled people can use new technologies to advance a hateful agenda. Unfortunately, Facebook had insufficient staff in Myanmar to take down the hate speech. Sins of omission are one thing, but it has become clear that the business model of many social media companies profits from fomenting hatred.

The Hateful Algorithm: Do Lots of Evil and Get Richly Rewarded

Contrary to the “do no evil” motto, social media companies can, at times, amplify political divisions and hatred. Their algorithms promote content that grabs attention, and the most effective way of doing this is often by boosting hateful speech that garners outrage and engagement. So, social media platforms are not just giving a megaphone to paranoid conspiracies but generally profiting from such dangerous rants because greater engagement translates into more advertising dollars.

essay on social media has done more harm than good

Relations Between the Sexes and the Death of Childhood

Swedish sex education created a model of respectful sensitivity to others that empowered female sexuality and reduced sexual violence (2). In contrast, contemporary children are first exposed to sexuality in the form of violent pornography from sites like YouTube viewed on their phones. This has the opposite effect of increasing conflict and violence between adolescent men and women, with an alarming increase in sexual assaults among teens.

Ration Social Media or Avoid Completely?

Social media can be a malevolent force in modern life that facilitates political division and crime and undermines psychological health. No one seriously disputes the harms caused by social media but many users would argue that the problems are still outweighed by the beneficial effects in keeping spatially distant people connected.

As it is, social media use can be both addictive and harmful. Silicon Valley executives are so frightened of what they have created that they steer their own children away from using their social platforms. These need to be regulated with the same care given to dangerous, addictive drugs. Likewise, a free-speech defense of social media is like saying that drug cartels should be allowed to express themselves by distributing freely.

1 Fisher, M. (2022). The chaos machine: The inside story of how social media rewired our minds, and our world. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

2 Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the nest: Family Change and decline in modern societies . Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Nigel Barber, Ph.D., is an evolutionary psychologist as well as the author of Why Parents Matter and The Science of Romance , among other books.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Can Social Media Have A Structure That Does More Good Than Harm?

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with Professor Zeynep Tufekci of the University of North Carolina about how social media impacts people's social connections and private lives.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Read the latest news stories about Mailman faculty, research, and events.

Departments

We integrate an innovative skills-based curriculum, research collaborations, and hands-on field experience to prepare students.

Learn more about our research centers, which focus on critical issues in public health.

Our Faculty

Meet the faculty of the Mailman School of Public Health.

Become a Student

Life and community, how to apply.

Learn how to apply to the Mailman School of Public Health.

Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In.

A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage girls, and all teenage users of the app linked it to experiences of anxiety and depression. It isn’t the first evidence of social media’s harms. Watchdog groups have identified Facebook and Instagram as avenues for cyberbullying , and reports have linked TikTok to dangerous and antisocial behavior, including a recent spate of school vandalism .

As social media has proliferated worldwide—Facebook has 2.85 billion users—so too have concerns over how the platforms are affecting individual and collective wellbeing. Social media is criticized for being addictive by design and for its role in the spread of misinformation on critical issues from vaccine safety to election integrity, as well as the rise of right-wing extremism. Social media companies, and many users, defend the platforms as avenues for promoting creativity and community-building. And some research has pushed back against the idea that social media raises the risk for depression in teens . So just how healthy or unhealthy is social media?

Two experts from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Columbia Psychiatry share their insights into one crucial aspect of social media’s influence—its effect on the mental health of young people and adults. Deborah Glasofer , associate professor of psychology in psychiatry, conducts psychotherapy development research for adults with eating disorders and teaches about cognitive behavioral therapy. She is the co-author of the book Eating Disorders: What Everyone Needs to Know. Claude Mellins , Professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, studies wellbeing among college and graduate students, among other topics, and serves as program director of CopeColumbia, a peer support program for Columbia faculty and staff whose mental health has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. She co-led the SHIFT research study to reduce sexual violence among undergraduates. Both use social media.

What do we know about the mental health risks of social media use?

Mellins : Facebook and Instagram and other social media platforms are important sources of socialization and relationship-building for many young people. Although there are important benefits, social media can also provide platforms for bullying and exclusion, unrealistic expectations about body image and sources of popularity, normalization of risk-taking behaviors, and can be detrimental to mental health. Girls and young people who identify as sexual and gender minorities can be especially vulnerable as targets. Young people’s brains are still developing, and as individuals, young people are developing their own identities. What they see on social media can define what is expected in ways that is not accurate and that can be destructive to identity development and self-image. Adolescence is a time of risk-taking, which is both a strength and a vulnerability. Social media can exacerbate risks, as we have seen played out in the news.

Although there are important benefits, social media can also provide platforms for bullying and exclusion, unrealistic expectations about body image and sources of popularity, normalization of risk-taking behaviors, and can be detrimental to mental health. – Claude Mellins

Glasofer : For those vulnerable to developing an eating disorder, social media may be especially unhelpful because it allows people to easily compare their appearance to their friends, to celebrities, even older images of themselves. Research tells us that how much someone engages with photo-related activities like posting and sharing photos on Facebook or Instagram is associated with less body acceptance and more obsessing about appearance. For adolescent girls in particular, the more time they spend on social media directly relates to how much they absorb the idea that being thin is ideal, are driven to try to become thin, and/or overly scrutinize their own bodies. Also, if someone is vulnerable to an eating disorder, they may be especially attracted to seeking out unhelpful information—which is all too easy to find on social media.

Are there any upsides to social media?

Mellins : For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests. During the pandemic, social media made it possible for people to connect in ways when in-person socialization was not possible. Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience. Friends we couldn’t see in person were available online and allowed us important points of connection. On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.

Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. – Deborah Glasofer

Glasofer : Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative in-person influences. For those with a history of eating disorders, there are body-positive and recovery groups on social media. Some people find these groups to be supportive; for others, it’s more beneficial to move on and pursue other interests.

Is there a healthy way to be on social media?

Mellins : If you feel social media is a negative experience, you might need a break. Disengaging with social media permanently is more difficult—especially for young people. These platforms are powerful tools for connecting and staying up-to-date with friends and family. Social events, too. If you’re not on social media then you’re reliant on your friends to reach out to you personally, which doesn’t always happen. It’s complicated.

Glasofer : When you find yourself feeling badly about yourself in relation to what other people are posting about themselves, then social media is not doing you any favors. If there is anything on social media that is negatively affecting your actions or your choices—for example, if you’re starting to eat restrictively or exercise excessively—then it’s time to reassess. Parents should check-in with their kids about their lives on social media. In general, I recommend limiting social media— creating boundaries that are reasonable and work for you—so you can be present with people in your life. I also recommend social media vacations. It’s good to take the time to notice the difference between the virtual world and the real world.

Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful? Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

It is important to note that social media is a core element of the internet, and it reshaped how a modern human perceives information, communicates, socializes, and learns about the outside world. It became a primary lens through which one interacts with others, and thus, it is critical to properly evaluate whether or not such a state of affairs is beneficial or harmful to human wellbeing. The given assessment argues that social media, not the internet, is harmful to society and humanity in general because it reshapes the social fabric, causes loss of reason, logic, attentiveness, and memory, violates individual rights of all people as well as proliferates misinformation, which means that social media’s harms heavily outweigh its benefits.

Firstly, in order to fairly and properly assess the benefits or harms of social media, the latter should be distinguished from the internet. For example, it is stated that “the notion that the Internet is bad for you seems premised on the idea that the Internet is one thing—a monolith” (Goldsmith 597). In other words, the internet is not one thing but rather a collection of vastly different forms of communication, presentation, information exchange, entertainment, interactions, and other functions. Therefore, the internet is a source of many positive aspects of modernity because it not only brings more informational democracy but also prevents restriction and control of the free exchange of knowledge. However, the question is not about the internet as a whole but rather social media. Unlike the internet, which brings a number of benefits, which far outweigh the harms, social media does not bring a similar imbalance in favor of good. Social media was designed to simplify socialization and communication online, but the outcome is unchecked control of the flow of conversation in favor of a specific agenda, profit, and violation of individual rights.

Secondly, not all internet elements utilize artificial intelligence as extensively as social media platforms. The use of AI allows such companies to fine-tune one typology of information consumed, which means that it is social media that makes decisions for its users. While the internet is a library of knowledge, where a person makes a clear choice on what to read, watch, listen to, or interact with, social media uses AI and complex algorithms to influence its user. The underlying business model of all social media platforms is to learn about its user as much as possible and profit from them in a targeted manner. Such a design is not an inherent feature of the internet, which is not constrained to be profitable in this manner since many websites operate through subscriptions, direct sales, or other means. When it comes to such dangers, AI itself can also be a problem. It is stated that “there are indeed concerns about the near-term future of AI —algorithmic traders crashing the economy, or sensitive power grids overreacting to fluctuations and shutting down electricity for large swaths of the population” (Littman 314). In other words, social media’s extensive use of AI in combination with its problematic business model creates a host of issues that are not attributable to the internet.

Thirdly, in addition to social media-specific problems, they are also linked to harms associated with both devices and the internet in general. As stated before, the internet has its harms and benefits, but the latter usually outweighs the former. Similarly, devices come with harms as well as benefits, where the balance is tilted towards the positive aspects. However, not only social media has its inherent design flaws, but it also has problems with devices and the internet in general, which makes their harms far more abundant than benefits. For example, it is stated that “while our phones offer convenience and diversion, they also breed anxiety” (Carr 582). In addition, “as the brain grows dependent on the technology, the research suggests, the intellect weakens,” and “the division of attention impedes reasoning and performance” (Carr 583). Therefore, these device-related problems are multiplied a hundredfold by the fact that social media amplifies distraction and attention division through notifications. Social media is not a highly intellect-strengthening medium either, which further complicates the dependence factor.

Fourthly, social media companies are not properly regulated, and the nature of the business heavily favors oligopoly rather than a proper competitive environment because people want to have a unified platform for communication and audience-building. Therefore, the industry generates highly powerful companies with unchecked capabilities, where the national and even international discourse takes place exclusively on such mediums. For example, one cannot deny the influence of Twitter or Facebook as drivers of political or social discourse. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest among such big tech companies in regards to providing an open and fair platform versus making a profit, and the decision is clearly made in favor of the latter. The very structure of the business model of social media is to influence users to buy the advertisers’ products or services, and thus, it cannot be a just and fair place for discussion on important subjects by definition. Such a state of affairs threatens the fabric of society whether or not these companies intend to do so.

Fifthly, the conflict of interest described in the previous section brings its biggest harm when it comes to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, where private enterprises are not obliged to protect the freedom of speech and expression. Since the national and international discourse and communication are taking the place of social media, where the First Amendment is mandatory to have, these platforms are unable, unwilling, and not obliged to provide it. One can easily observe how such companies can become politically tilted towards one agenda over the other, where accounts of even the most influential individuals can be banned because they violated the terms of service of the company. In other words, a company’s rules override the Constitutional rules. It is important to note that only a better speech can be an answer to a bad speech and not a removal of that voice.

Sixthly, social media platforms are heavily engaged in data collection and privacy violations, which was demonstrated by well-known scandals and criticisms. Once again, the business model of social media companies is structured in such a manner that their primary customers are not users but advertisers. A former group is a form of product or service being sold to advertisers, which means that social media advances surveillance capitalism at its core. In a century where the right to privacy is constantly becoming a problem due to governmental antiterrorism interests, social media further threatens these fundamental rights. The problem is even more dangerous when one considers the ever-increasing cyber threat proliferation, which means a breach of security in a social media company endangers all of its users.

Seventhly, social media does not have a well-structured method of combatting misinformation since its primary incentive is to promote engagement and grab attention. Social media companies are conflicted between ensuring the accuracy of the information on their platform and boosting the interactivity with their users. Such companies want to have interesting pieces of information, which are better provided by misinformation since the truth is always more complex and intricate. Therefore, one can see how social media can become a breeding ground for people with agenda of public deception. In addition, these platforms would not have the capability to ensure the accuracy of information even if they were incentivized somehow. Public panic and political polarization are other phenomena that accompany social networks, and the catalyst for these occurrences is information received both directly by the subject and disseminated using modern social communication technologies.

In conclusion, social media is not the internet, and its harms are far more extensive than the latter because it affects memory, attention, and reason and violates individual rights for privacy, free expression, and fairness in discourse, as well as proliferates misinformation. In addition, social media inherits inherent problems associated with modern devices and the internet in general, which further compounds its harm. Therefore, the effects of social media hurt the social fabric by pretending that it serves its users while its actual customers are advertisers. It also pretends to provide an open and free platform for communication while its very business model implies targeted influence on the user’s preferences. The use of AI also adds to all of the concerns related to artificial intelligence safety.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. “How Smartphones Hijack Our Minds.” They Say/I Say , edited by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, W.W. Norton & Norton Company, 2021, pp. 582-596.

Goldsmith, Kenneth. “Go Ahead: Waste Time on the Internet.” They Say/I Say , edited by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, W.W. Norton & Norton Company, 2021, pp. 597-602.

Littman, Michael. “Rise of the Machines” Is Not a Likely Future.” They Say/I Say , edited by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, W.W. Norton & Norton Company, 2021, pp. 311-314.

The Concept of Internet Etiquette (Netiquette)
Multicast Routing and Its Protocols
Innovation in Textiles: New Fabric
Navigating AI in Security: Safeguarding Privacy and Society
The Importance of Trust in AI Adoption
Online Identity-Creating New Personas and Relations
IT Network Connectivity
Interconnection of College Campus Lans to Wan
Extensible HyperText Markup Language
Influence of YouTube and Facebook on Business
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, July 2). Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful? https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-media-beneficial-or-harmful/

"Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful?" IvyPanda , 2 July 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/social-media-beneficial-or-harmful/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful'. 2 July.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful?" July 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-media-beneficial-or-harmful/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful?" July 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-media-beneficial-or-harmful/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful?" July 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-media-beneficial-or-harmful/.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Sociology of Media and Communication — Social Media

Argumentative Essays About Social Media

Social media argumentative essay topics.

This is a comprehensive resource to help you find the perfect social media essay topic. Whether you're navigating the complexities of digital communication, exploring the impact of social media on society, or examining its effects on personal identity, the right topic can transform your essay into a captivating and insightful exploration. Remember, selecting a topic that resonates with your personal interests and academic goals not only makes the writing process more enjoyable but also enriches your learning experience. Let's dive into a world of creativity and critical thinking!

Below, you'll find a curated list of essay topics organized by type. Each section includes diverse topics that touch on technology, society, personal growth, and academic interests, along with introduction and conclusion paragraph examples to get you started.

Argumentative Essays

The Influence of Social Media on Teen Self-Esteem

Introduction Example: "In the digital age, social media platforms have become central to our daily interactions and self-perception, particularly among teenagers. This essay explores the impact of social media on teen self-esteem, arguing that while it offers a space for expression and connection, it also presents significant challenges to self-image. "

Conclusion Example: "Having delved into the complex relationship between social media and teen self-esteem, it is clear that the digital landscape holds profound effects on individual self-perception. This essay reaffirms the thesis that social media can both uplift and undermine teen self-esteem, calling for a balanced approach to digital engagement."

The Role of Social Media in Political Mobilization

Introduction Example: "As political landscapes evolve, social media has emerged as a powerful tool for political mobilization and engagement. This essay investigates the role of social media in shaping political movements, positing that it significantly enhances communication and organizational capabilities, yet raises questions about information authenticity. "

Conclusion Example: "Through examining the dual facets of social media in political mobilization, the essay concludes that while social media is a pivotal tool for engagement, it necessitates critical scrutiny of information to ensure a well-informed public discourse."

Compare and Contrast Essays

Instagram vs. Twitter: Platforms for Brand Promotion

Introduction Example: "In the competitive realm of digital marketing, Instagram and Twitter stand out as leading platforms for brand promotion. This essay compares and contrasts their effectiveness, revealing that each platform caters to unique marketing strengths due to its specific user engagement and content dissemination strategies. "

Conclusion Example: "The comparative analysis of Instagram and Twitter highlights distinct advantages for brands, with Instagram excelling in visual storytelling and Twitter in real-time engagement, underscoring the importance of strategic platform selection in digital marketing."

Descriptive Essays

Describing the Social Media Landscape of Today

Introduction Example: "Today's social media landscape is a vibrant tapestry of platforms, each contributing to the digital era's social fabric. This essay describes the characteristics and cultural significance of current social media trends, illustrating that they reflect and shape our societal values and interactions. "

Conclusion Example: "In portraying the dynamic and diverse nature of today's social media landscape, this essay underscores its role in molding contemporary cultural and social paradigms, inviting readers to reflect on their digital footprints."

Persuasive Essays

Encouraging Positive Social Media Habits

Introduction Example: "In an era where digital presence is ubiquitous, fostering positive social media habits is essential for mental and emotional well-being. This essay advocates for mindful social media use, arguing that intentional engagement can enhance our life experiences rather than detract from them. "

Conclusion Example: "This essay has championed the cause for positive social media habits, reinforcing the thesis that through mindful engagement, individuals can navigate the digital world in a way that promotes personal growth and well-being."

Narrative Essays

My Journey with Social Media: A Personal Reflection

Introduction Example: "Embarking on a personal journey with social media has been both enlightening and challenging. This narrative essay delves into my experiences, highlighting how social media has influenced my perception of self and community. "

Conclusion Example: "Reflecting on my social media journey, this essay concludes that while it has significantly shaped my interactions and self-view, it has also offered invaluable lessons on connectivity and self-awareness, affirming the nuanced role of digital platforms in our lives."

As you explore these topics, remember to approach your essay with an open mind and creative spirit. The purpose of academic writing is not just to inform but to engage and provoke thought. Use this opportunity to delve deep into your topic, analyze different perspectives, and articulate your own insights.

Each essay type offers unique learning outcomes. Argumentative essays enhance your analytical thinking and ability to construct well-founded arguments. Compare and contrast essays develop your skills in identifying similarities and differences. Descriptive essays improve your ability to paint vivid pictures through words, while persuasive essays refine your ability to influence and convince. Finally, narrative essays offer a platform for personal expression and storytelling. Embrace these opportunities to grow academically and personally.

Some Easy Argumentative Essay Topics on Social Media

The Impact of Social Media: Advantages and Disadvantages
Is Social Media Enhancing or Eroding Our Real-Life Social Skills?
Should There Be Stricter Regulations on Social Media Content to Protect Youth?
Social Media's Role in Relationships: Communication Enhancer or Barrier
Does Social Media Contribute to Political Polarization?
The Role of Social Media in Shaping Perceptions of Divorce
The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health: Benefit or Harm?
Can Social Media Be Considered a Reliable Source of News and Information?
Is Social Media Responsible for the Rise in Cyberbullying?
Impact of Social Media on Mental Health
Does Social Media Promote Narcissism and Self-Centered Behaviors?
The Role of Social Media in Business Marketing: Is It Indispensable?

Hooks Examples for Argumentative Essay about Social Media

"In an era where a single tweet can ignite a movement or ruin a reputation, social media's influence on our lives is undeniable. But is this digital revolution more beneficial or harmful to society?"
"As social media platforms increasingly shape public opinion and behavior, the debate intensifies: Do they promote free expression or fuel misinformation and division?"
"Social media has transformed how we communicate, but at what cost? Exploring the impacts on mental health, privacy, and societal norms reveals a complex web of benefits and drawbacks."
"With billions of users worldwide, social media holds unprecedented power. Should we celebrate its role in connecting people or scrutinize its potential to manipulate and mislead?"
"From viral challenges to political campaigns, social media is a double-edged sword. Is it a force for positive change or a threat to our privacy and well-being?"

Artifice in Contemporary Society: a Double-edged Sword

The role of hate speech in social media, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health: Scrolling Through Struggles

Social media is beneficial to the mankind, the detrimental effects of social media on the young generation, the effect of social media challenges on current generation, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Pros and Cons of Social Media: Social Networking

Positive and negative effects of social media, sleeping habits and social media usage, negative effect of social media on young people, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Social Media Cons and Prons: Evaluating Its Advantages and Disadvantage

The importance of staying safe on social media, impact of social media on our lives, social media: negative effects and addiction, discussion on whether is social media beneficial or harmful for society, negative effects of social media: relationships and communication, social media pros and cons, social media - good and bad sides, a study of the role of social media concerning confidentiality of personal data, how social media causes stereotyping, social media addiction: consequences and strategies for recovery, the role of social media in making us more narcissistic, the effect social media is having on today's society and political atmosphere, digital/social media, censorship in social media, why teenagers are addicted to social media and how it affects them, advantages and disadvantages of social media for society, enormous impact of mass media on children, the role of social media in the current business world, social media is the reason for many of the world’s problems and solutions.

Social media is a digital platform that allows users to create, share, and exchange information and ideas.

Social media's origins trace back to May 24, 1844, with the telegraph's electronic dots and dashes. Modern narratives often cite the 1969 creation of ARPANET as the internet's beginning. In 1987, the National Science Foundation's NSFNET, a robust nationwide digital network, was established. A significant milestone in social media history occurred in 1997 with the launch of Six Degrees, the first genuine social media platform.

Social Networking Sites: Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace.
Microblogging Platforms: Twitter.
Media Sharing Networks: Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat.
Discussion Forums and Community-Based Platforms: Reddit and Quora.
Blogging Platforms: WordPress and Blogger.
Social Bookmarking and Content Curation Platforms: Pinterest and Flipboard.
Messaging Apps: WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and WeChat.

Facebook (2004), Reddit (2005), Twitter (2006), Instagram (2010), Pinterest (2010), Snapchat (2011), TikTok (2016)

Increased Connectivity
Information Sharing and Awareness
Networking and Professional Opportunities
Creativity and Self-Expression
Supportive Communities and Causes
Privacy Concerns
Cyberbullying and Online Harassment
Information Overload and Misinformation
Time and Productivity Drain
Comparison and Self-Esteem Issues

The topic of social media is important because it has revolutionized the way we communicate, connect, and consume information. It has a significant impact on businesses, politics, relationships, and society as a whole. Understanding the implications and effects of social media is crucial in today's digital age.

Social media users spend an average of 2 hours and 25 minutes per day on social networking platforms. This amounts to over 7 years of an individual's lifetime spent on social media, highlighting its significant presence in our daily lives.
Instagram has over 1 billion monthly active users, with more than 500 million of them using the platform on a daily basis.
YouTube is the second largest search engine behind Google.
Social media has become a major news source, with 48% of people getting their news from social media platforms. This shift in news consumption highlights the role of social media in shaping public opinion and disseminating information in real-time.
The average internet user has 7.6 social media accounts.

1. Schober, M. F., Pasek, J., Guggenheim, L., Lampe, C., & Conrad, F. G. (2016). Social media analyses for social measurement. Public opinion quarterly, 80(1), 180-211. (https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/80/1/180/2593846) 2. Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 48(1), 79-95. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1?error=cookies_not_support) 3. Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-five years of social media: a review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 24(4), 215-222. (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2020.0134) 4. Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063-1064. (https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.346.6213.1063) 5. Hou, Y., Xiong, D., Jiang, T., Song, L., & Wang, Q. (2019). Social media addiction: Its impact, mediation, and intervention. Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace, 13(1). (https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/11562) 6. Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center, 1, 1-4. (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2021/04/PI_2021.04.07_Social-Media-Use_FINAL.pdf) 7. Al-Samarraie, H., Bello, K. A., Alzahrani, A. I., Smith, A. P., & Emele, C. (2021). Young users' social media addiction: causes, consequences and preventions. Information Technology & People, 35(7), 2314-2343. (https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ITP-11-2020-0753/full/html) 8. Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. (2021). Ethics of the attention economy: The problem of social media addiction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(3), 321-359. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/ethics-of-the-attention-economy-the-problem-of-social-mediaaddiction/1CC67609A12E9A912BB8A291FDFFE799)

Relevant topics

Media Analysis
Effects of Social Media
Discourse Community
Personal Identity
Sociological Imagination
Cultural Appropriation
American Identity

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Princeton Summer Journal

A publication of the princeton university summer journalism program, is social media doing more harm than good.

By Julia Francisco Los Angeles, Calif.

WE ALL know social media can be helpful, but is it possible that it is doing more harm than good? Posts and likes con-nect people by the minute around the globe through platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter. These platforms can bring business, awareness, connections, and even acceptance. Yet they can also cause manipulation, toxic-ity, and mental health problems.

Social media users range across all ages: kids, teens, and adults. With unchecked content posted around the clock, it is no surprise that misinformation circulates widely across platforms, across the country and across the world. It may not seem like a big deal, but when impressionable audiences start to believe and share the information they come across on social media without fact-checking, our collective knowledge is tainted.

Many times, misleading information centers public figures. When enough angry people have liked, commented, and shared the information, users collaborate to “cancel” the person. “Cancel culture,” as it’s called, shuns people from society and allows for them to be publicly “dragged” and harassed by the users on these platforms. It is seen as a form of justice, but is it really justice or just bullying?

Social media is also a performative space, where people are made to believe that they have to appear flawless in front of their audience. Many social media feeds include dance routines, selfies and makeup trends. These posts may seem harmless, but when users—especially young people—are constantly re-minded of what they don’t have, it can take a toll on their mental health. Many start to compare them-selves to celebrities and influencers. They wonder why their bodies aren’t shaped like an hourglass, or why their skin doesn’t look perfect. Others value themselves only by the number of followers and likes they’ve accumulated, and some deal with trolls and hateful comments. Numerous users do find a community of acceptance online, but many also find a world of toxicity.

Although social media was de-signed to keep people connected, with all the lies, hate, envy, and dismay it produces, social media has actually brought disconnection to the world. We have to remind ourselves that social media is just a show, and that we are perfectly imperfect beings. I do not mean to advocate for the deletion of social media, but simply to encourage the occasional reprieve. Consider this a reminder to take breaks from the cyber world to protect yourself and your mental health.

How Harmful Is Social Media?

In April, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt published an essay in The Atlantic in which he sought to explain, as the piece’s title had it, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.” Anyone familiar with Haidt’s work in the past half decade could have anticipated his answer: social media. Although Haidt concedes that political polarization and factional enmity long predate the rise of the platforms, and that there are plenty of other factors involved, he believes that the tools of virality—Facebook’s Like and Share buttons, Twitter’s Retweet function—have algorithmically and irrevocably corroded public life. He has determined that a great historical discontinuity can be dated with some precision to the period between 2010 and 2014, when these features became widely available on phones.

“What changed in the 2010s?” Haidt asks, reminding his audience that a former Twitter developer had once compared the Retweet button to the provision of a four-year-old with a loaded weapon. “A mean tweet doesn’t kill anyone; it is an attempt to shame or punish someone publicly while broadcasting one’s own virtue, brilliance, or tribal loyalties. It’s more a dart than a bullet, causing pain but no fatalities. Even so, from 2009 to 2012, Facebook and Twitter passed out roughly a billion dart guns globally. We’ve been shooting one another ever since.” While the right has thrived on conspiracy-mongering and misinformation, the left has turned punitive: “When everyone was issued a dart gun in the early 2010s, many left-leaning institutions began shooting themselves in the brain. And, unfortunately, those were the brains that inform, instruct, and entertain most of the country.” Haidt’s prevailing metaphor of thoroughgoing fragmentation is the story of the Tower of Babel: the rise of social media has “unwittingly dissolved the mortar of trust, belief in institutions, and shared stories that had held a large and diverse secular democracy together.”

These are, needless to say, common concerns. Chief among Haidt’s worries is that use of social media has left us particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias, or the propensity to fix upon evidence that shores up our prior beliefs. Haidt acknowledges that the extant literature on social media’s effects is large and complex, and that there is something in it for everyone. On January 6, 2021, he was on the phone with Chris Bail, a sociologist at Duke and the author of the recent book “ Breaking the Social Media Prism ,” when Bail urged him to turn on the television. Two weeks later, Haidt wrote to Bail, expressing his frustration at the way Facebook officials consistently cited the same handful of studies in their defense. He suggested that the two of them collaborate on a comprehensive literature review that they could share, as a Google Doc, with other researchers. (Haidt had experimented with such a model before.) Bail was cautious. He told me, “What I said to him was, ‘Well, you know, I’m not sure the research is going to bear out your version of the story,’ and he said, ‘Why don’t we see?’ ”

Bail emphasized that he is not a “platform-basher.” He added, “In my book, my main take is, Yes, the platforms play a role, but we are greatly exaggerating what it’s possible for them to do—how much they could change things no matter who’s at the helm at these companies—and we’re profoundly underestimating the human element, the motivation of users.” He found Haidt’s idea of a Google Doc appealing, in the way that it would produce a kind of living document that existed “somewhere between scholarship and public writing.” Haidt was eager for a forum to test his ideas. “I decided that if I was going to be writing about this—what changed in the universe, around 2014, when things got weird on campus and elsewhere—once again, I’d better be confident I’m right,” he said. “I can’t just go off my feelings and my readings of the biased literature. We all suffer from confirmation bias, and the only cure is other people who don’t share your own.”

Haidt and Bail, along with a research assistant, populated the document over the course of several weeks last year, and in November they invited about two dozen scholars to contribute. Haidt told me, of the difficulties of social-scientific methodology, “When you first approach a question, you don’t even know what it is. ‘Is social media destroying democracy, yes or no?’ That’s not a good question. You can’t answer that question. So what can you ask and answer?” As the document took on a life of its own, tractable rubrics emerged—Does social media make people angrier or more affectively polarized? Does it create political echo chambers? Does it increase the probability of violence? Does it enable foreign governments to increase political dysfunction in the United States and other democracies? Haidt continued, “It’s only after you break it up into lots of answerable questions that you see where the complexity lies.”

Haidt came away with the sense, on balance, that social media was in fact pretty bad. He was disappointed, but not surprised, that Facebook’s response to his article relied on the same three studies they’ve been reciting for years. “This is something you see with breakfast cereals,” he said, noting that a cereal company “might say, ‘Did you know we have twenty-five per cent more riboflavin than the leading brand?’ They’ll point to features where the evidence is in their favor, which distracts you from the over-all fact that your cereal tastes worse and is less healthy.”

After Haidt’s piece was published, the Google Doc—“Social Media and Political Dysfunction: A Collaborative Review”—was made available to the public . Comments piled up, and a new section was added, at the end, to include a miscellany of Twitter threads and Substack essays that appeared in response to Haidt’s interpretation of the evidence. Some colleagues and kibbitzers agreed with Haidt. But others, though they might have shared his basic intuition that something in our experience of social media was amiss, drew upon the same data set to reach less definitive conclusions, or even mildly contradictory ones. Even after the initial flurry of responses to Haidt’s article disappeared into social-media memory, the document, insofar as it captured the state of the social-media debate, remained a lively artifact.

Near the end of the collaborative project’s introduction, the authors warn, “We caution readers not to simply add up the number of studies on each side and declare one side the winner.” The document runs to more than a hundred and fifty pages, and for each question there are affirmative and dissenting studies, as well as some that indicate mixed results. According to one paper, “Political expressions on social media and the online forum were found to (a) reinforce the expressers’ partisan thought process and (b) harden their pre-existing political preferences,” but, according to another, which used data collected during the 2016 election, “Over the course of the campaign, we found media use and attitudes remained relatively stable. Our results also showed that Facebook news use was related to modest over-time spiral of depolarization. Furthermore, we found that people who use Facebook for news were more likely to view both pro- and counter-attitudinal news in each wave. Our results indicated that counter-attitudinal exposure increased over time, which resulted in depolarization.” If results like these seem incompatible, a perplexed reader is given recourse to a study that says, “Our findings indicate that political polarization on social media cannot be conceptualized as a unified phenomenon, as there are significant cross-platform differences.”

Interested in echo chambers? “Our results show that the aggregation of users in homophilic clusters dominate online interactions on Facebook and Twitter,” which seems convincing—except that, as another team has it, “We do not find evidence supporting a strong characterization of ‘echo chambers’ in which the majority of people’s sources of news are mutually exclusive and from opposite poles.” By the end of the file, the vaguely patronizing top-line recommendation against simple summation begins to make more sense. A document that originated as a bulwark against confirmation bias could, as it turned out, just as easily function as a kind of generative device to support anybody’s pet conviction. The only sane response, it seemed, was simply to throw one’s hands in the air.

When I spoke to some of the researchers whose work had been included, I found a combination of broad, visceral unease with the current situation—with the banefulness of harassment and trolling; with the opacity of the platforms; with, well, the widespread presentiment that of course social media is in many ways bad—and a contrastive sense that it might not be catastrophically bad in some of the specific ways that many of us have come to take for granted as true. This was not mere contrarianism, and there was no trace of gleeful mythbusting; the issue was important enough to get right. When I told Bail that the upshot seemed to me to be that exactly nothing was unambiguously clear, he suggested that there was at least some firm ground. He sounded a bit less apocalyptic than Haidt.

“A lot of the stories out there are just wrong,” he told me. “The political echo chamber has been massively overstated. Maybe it’s three to five per cent of people who are properly in an echo chamber.” Echo chambers, as hotboxes of confirmation bias, are counterproductive for democracy. But research indicates that most of us are actually exposed to a wider range of views on social media than we are in real life, where our social networks—in the original use of the term—are rarely heterogeneous. (Haidt told me that this was an issue on which the Google Doc changed his mind; he became convinced that echo chambers probably aren’t as widespread a problem as he’d once imagined.) And too much of a focus on our intuitions about social media’s echo-chamber effect could obscure the relevant counterfactual: a conservative might abandon Twitter only to watch more Fox News. “Stepping outside your echo chamber is supposed to make you moderate, but maybe it makes you more extreme,” Bail said. The research is inchoate and ongoing, and it’s difficult to say anything on the topic with absolute certainty. But this was, in part, Bail’s point: we ought to be less sure about the particular impacts of social media.

Bail went on, “The second story is foreign misinformation.” It’s not that misinformation doesn’t exist, or that it hasn’t had indirect effects, especially when it creates perverse incentives for the mainstream media to cover stories circulating online. Haidt also draws convincingly upon the work of Renée DiResta, the research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, to sketch out a potential future in which the work of shitposting has been outsourced to artificial intelligence, further polluting the informational environment. But, at least so far, very few Americans seem to suffer from consistent exposure to fake news—“probably less than two per cent of Twitter users, maybe fewer now, and for those who were it didn’t change their opinions,” Bail said. This was probably because the people likeliest to consume such spectacles were the sort of people primed to believe them in the first place. “In fact,” he said, “echo chambers might have done something to quarantine that misinformation.”

The final story that Bail wanted to discuss was the “proverbial rabbit hole, the path to algorithmic radicalization,” by which YouTube might serve a viewer increasingly extreme videos. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that this does happen, at least on occasion, and such anecdotes are alarming to hear. But a new working paper led by Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth, found that almost all extremist content is either consumed by subscribers to the relevant channels—a sign of actual demand rather than manipulation or preference falsification—or encountered via links from external sites. It’s easy to see why we might prefer if this were not the case: algorithmic radicalization is presumably a simpler problem to solve than the fact that there are people who deliberately seek out vile content. “These are the three stories—echo chambers, foreign influence campaigns, and radicalizing recommendation algorithms—but, when you look at the literature, they’ve all been overstated.” He thought that these findings were crucial for us to assimilate, if only to help us understand that our problems may lie beyond technocratic tinkering. He explained, “Part of my interest in getting this research out there is to demonstrate that everybody is waiting for an Elon Musk to ride in and save us with an algorithm”—or, presumably, the reverse—“and it’s just not going to happen.”

When I spoke with Nyhan, he told me much the same thing: “The most credible research is way out of line with the takes.” He noted, of extremist content and misinformation, that reliable research that “measures exposure to these things finds that the people consuming this content are small minorities who have extreme views already.” The problem with the bulk of the earlier research, Nyhan told me, is that it’s almost all correlational. “Many of these studies will find polarization on social media,” he said. “But that might just be the society we live in reflected on social media!” He hastened to add, “Not that this is untroubling, and none of this is to let these companies, which are exercising a lot of power with very little scrutiny, off the hook. But a lot of the criticisms of them are very poorly founded. . . . The expansion of Internet access coincides with fifteen other trends over time, and separating them is very difficult. The lack of good data is a huge problem insofar as it lets people project their own fears into this area.” He told me, “It’s hard to weigh in on the side of ‘We don’t know, the evidence is weak,’ because those points are always going to be drowned out in our discourse. But these arguments are systematically underprovided in the public domain.”

In his Atlantic article, Haidt leans on a working paper by two social scientists, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen and Lisa Oswald, who took on a comprehensive meta-analysis of about five hundred papers and concluded that “the large majority of reported associations between digital media use and trust appear to be detrimental for democracy.” Haidt writes, “The literature is complex—some studies show benefits, particularly in less developed democracies—but the review found that, on balance, social media amplifies political polarization; foments populism, especially right-wing populism; and is associated with the spread of misinformation.” Nyhan was less convinced that the meta-analysis supported such categorical verdicts, especially once you bracketed the kinds of correlational findings that might simply mirror social and political dynamics. He told me, “If you look at their summary of studies that allow for causal inferences—it’s very mixed.”

As for the studies Nyhan considered most methodologically sound, he pointed to a 2020 article called “The Welfare Effects of Social Media,” by Hunt Allcott, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer, and Matthew Gentzkow. For four weeks prior to the 2018 midterm elections, the authors randomly divided a group of volunteers into two cohorts—one that continued to use Facebook as usual, and another that was paid to deactivate their accounts for that period. They found that deactivation “(i) reduced online activity, while increasing offline activities such as watching TV alone and socializing with family and friends; (ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization; (iii) increased subjective well-being; and (iv) caused a large persistent reduction in post-experiment Facebook use.” But Gentzkow reminded me that his conclusions, including that Facebook may slightly increase polarization, had to be heavily qualified: “From other kinds of evidence, I think there’s reason to think social media is not the main driver of increasing polarization over the long haul in the United States.”

In the book “ Why We’re Polarized ,” for example, Ezra Klein invokes the work of such scholars as Lilliana Mason to argue that the roots of polarization might be found in, among other factors, the political realignment and nationalization that began in the sixties, and were then sacralized, on the right, by the rise of talk radio and cable news. These dynamics have served to flatten our political identities, weakening our ability or inclination to find compromise. Insofar as some forms of social media encourage the hardening of connections between our identities and a narrow set of opinions, we might increasingly self-select into mutually incomprehensible and hostile groups; Haidt plausibly suggests that these processes are accelerated by the coalescence of social-media tribes around figures of fearful online charisma. “Social media might be more of an amplifier of other things going on rather than a major driver independently,” Gentzkow argued. “I think it takes some gymnastics to tell a story where it’s all primarily driven by social media, especially when you’re looking at different countries, and across different groups.”

Another study, led by Nejla Asimovic and Joshua Tucker, replicated Gentzkow’s approach in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and they found almost precisely the opposite results: the people who stayed on Facebook were, by the end of the study, more positively disposed to their historic out-groups. The authors’ interpretation was that ethnic groups have so little contact in Bosnia that, for some people, social media is essentially the only place where they can form positive images of one another. “To have a replication and have the signs flip like that, it’s pretty stunning,” Bail told me. “It’s a different conversation in every part of the world.”

Nyhan argued that, at least in wealthy Western countries, we might be too heavily discounting the degree to which platforms have responded to criticism: “Everyone is still operating under the view that algorithms simply maximize engagement in a short-term way” with minimal attention to potential externalities. “That might’ve been true when Zuckerberg had seven people working for him, but there are a lot of considerations that go into these rankings now.” He added, “There’s some evidence that, with reverse-chronological feeds”—streams of unwashed content, which some critics argue are less manipulative than algorithmic curation—“people get exposed to more low-quality content, so it’s another case where a very simple notion of ‘algorithms are bad’ doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It doesn’t mean they’re good, it’s just that we don’t know.”

Bail told me that, over all, he was less confident than Haidt that the available evidence lines up clearly against the platforms. “Maybe there’s a slight majority of studies that say that social media is a net negative, at least in the West, and maybe it’s doing some good in the rest of the world.” But, he noted, “Jon will say that science has this expectation of rigor that can’t keep up with the need in the real world—that even if we don’t have the definitive study that creates the historical counterfactual that Facebook is largely responsible for polarization in the U.S., there’s still a lot pointing in that direction, and I think that’s a fair point.” He paused. “It can’t all be randomized control trials.”

Haidt comes across in conversation as searching and sincere, and, during our exchange, he paused several times to suggest that I include a quote from John Stuart Mill on the importance of good-faith debate to moral progress. In that spirit, I asked him what he thought of the argument, elaborated by some of Haidt’s critics, that the problems he described are fundamentally political, social, and economic, and that to blame social media is to search for lost keys under the streetlamp, where the light is better. He agreed that this was the steelman opponent: there were predecessors for cancel culture in de Tocqueville, and anxiety about new media that went back to the time of the printing press. “This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, and it’s absolutely up to the prosecution—people like me—to argue that, no, this time it’s different. But it’s a civil case! The evidential standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ as in a criminal case. It’s just a preponderance of the evidence.”

The way scholars weigh the testimony is subject to their disciplinary orientations. Economists and political scientists tend to believe that you can’t even begin to talk about causal dynamics without a randomized controlled trial, whereas sociologists and psychologists are more comfortable drawing inferences on a correlational basis. Haidt believes that conditions are too dire to take the hardheaded, no-reasonable-doubt view. “The preponderance of the evidence is what we use in public health. If there’s an epidemic—when COVID started, suppose all the scientists had said, ‘No, we gotta be so certain before you do anything’? We have to think about what’s actually happening, what’s likeliest to pay off.” He continued, “We have the largest epidemic ever of teen mental health, and there is no other explanation,” he said. “It is a raging public-health epidemic, and the kids themselves say Instagram did it, and we have some evidence, so is it appropriate to say, ‘Nah, you haven’t proven it’?”

This was his attitude across the board. He argued that social media seemed to aggrandize inflammatory posts and to be correlated with a rise in violence; even if only small groups were exposed to fake news, such beliefs might still proliferate in ways that were hard to measure. “In the post-Babel era, what matters is not the average but the dynamics, the contagion, the exponential amplification,” he said. “Small things can grow very quickly, so arguments that Russian disinformation didn’t matter are like COVID arguments that people coming in from China didn’t have contact with a lot of people.” Given the transformative effects of social media, Haidt insisted, it was important to act now, even in the absence of dispositive evidence. “Academic debates play out over decades and are often never resolved, whereas the social-media environment changes year by year,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of waiting around five or ten years for literature reviews.”

Haidt could be accused of question-begging—of assuming the existence of a crisis that the research might or might not ultimately underwrite. Still, the gap between the two sides in this case might not be quite as wide as Haidt thinks. Skeptics of his strongest claims are not saying that there’s no there there. Just because the average YouTube user is unlikely to be led to Stormfront videos, Nyhan told me, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry that some people are watching Stormfront videos; just because echo chambers and foreign misinformation seem to have had effects only at the margins, Gentzkow said, doesn’t mean they’re entirely irrelevant. “There are many questions here where the thing we as researchers are interested in is how social media affects the average person,” Gentzkow told me. “There’s a different set of questions where all you need is a small number of people to change—questions about ethnic violence in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, people on YouTube mobilized to do mass shootings. Much of the evidence broadly makes me skeptical that the average effects are as big as the public discussion thinks they are, but I also think there are cases where a small number of people with very extreme views are able to find each other and connect and act.” He added, “That’s where many of the things I’d be most concerned about lie.”

The same might be said about any phenomenon where the base rate is very low but the stakes are very high, such as teen suicide. “It’s another case where those rare edge cases in terms of total social harm may be enormous. You don’t need many teen-age kids to decide to kill themselves or have serious mental-health outcomes in order for the social harm to be really big.” He added, “Almost none of this work is able to get at those edge-case effects, and we have to be careful that if we do establish that the average effect of something is zero, or small, that it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be worried about it—because we might be missing those extremes.” Jaime Settle, a scholar of political behavior at the College of William & Mary and the author of the book “ Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America ,” noted that Haidt is “farther along the spectrum of what most academics who study this stuff are going to say we have strong evidence for.” But she understood his impulse: “We do have serious problems, and I’m glad Jon wrote the piece, and down the road I wouldn’t be surprised if we got a fuller handle on the role of social media in all of this—there are definitely ways in which social media has changed our politics for the worse.”

It’s tempting to sidestep the question of diagnosis entirely, and to evaluate Haidt’s essay not on the basis of predictive accuracy—whether social media will lead to the destruction of American democracy—but as a set of proposals for what we might do better. If he is wrong, how much damage are his prescriptions likely to do? Haidt, to his great credit, does not indulge in any wishful thinking, and if his diagnosis is largely technological his prescriptions are sociopolitical. Two of his three major suggestions seem useful and have nothing to do with social media: he thinks that we should end closed primaries and that children should be given wide latitude for unsupervised play. His recommendations for social-media reform are, for the most part, uncontroversial: he believes that preteens shouldn’t be on Instagram and that platforms should share their data with outside researchers—proposals that are both likely to be beneficial and not very costly.

It remains possible, however, that the true costs of social-media anxieties are harder to tabulate. Gentzkow told me that, for the period between 2016 and 2020, the direct effects of misinformation were difficult to discern. “But it might have had a much larger effect because we got so worried about it—a broader impact on trust,” he said. “Even if not that many people were exposed, the narrative that the world is full of fake news, and you can’t trust anything, and other people are being misled about it—well, that might have had a bigger impact than the content itself.” Nyhan had a similar reaction. “There are genuine questions that are really important, but there’s a kind of opportunity cost that is missed here. There’s so much focus on sweeping claims that aren’t actionable, or unfounded claims we can contradict with data, that are crowding out the harms we can demonstrate, and the things we can test, that could make social media better.” He added, “We’re years into this, and we’re still having an uninformed conversation about social media. It’s totally wild.”

New Yorker Favorites

An Oscar-winning filmmaker takes on the Church of Scientology .

Wendy Wasserstein on the baby who arrived too soon .

The young stowaways thrown overboard at sea .

As he rose in politics, Robert Moses discovered that decisions about New York City’s future would not be based on democracy .

The Muslim tamale king of the Old West .

Fiction by Jamaica Kincaid: “ Girl .”

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact
Media Choice
Digital Equity
Digital Literacy and Citizenship
Tech Accountability
Healthy Childhood
20 Years of Impact

London School of Economics Evaluation of Our Digital Citizenship Curriculum

AI Ratings and Reviews

Our Current Research
Past Research
Archived Datasets

Getting Help Online: How Young People Find, Evaluate and Use Online Mental Health Tools and Information

Teen and Young Adult Perspectives on Generative AI: Patterns of Use, Excitements, and Concerns

Press Releases
Our Experts
Our Perspectives
Public Filings and Letters

Common Sense Media Announces Framework for First-of-Its-Kind AI Ratings System

Protecting Kids' Digital Privacy Is Now Easier Than Ever

How We Work
Diversity and Inclusion
Meet Our Team
Board of Directors
Board of Advisors
Our Partners
How We Rate and Review Media
How We Rate and Review for Learning
Our Offices
Join as a Parent
Join as an Educator
Sign Up for Our Newsletters
Request a Speaker
We're Hiring

Social Media Is Doing More Harm Than Good

Much like Big Tobacco, Big Tech has realized that addicting kids -- whose brains and identities are still developing -- produces astronomical profits. For that reason, social media platforms are designed to exploit kids' and teens' attention and extract their data for the sake of advertising.

And it's working: For example, from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 of this year, Facebook made $82.3 billion from advertising. During the same period, YouTube made $20.2 billion from advertising.

Keeping kids engaged and addicted is driving how these organizations design their platforms, and without regulation to change things, they will continue to do so. How does profit-driven, addictive design impact kids and teens? We have compiled a list of the ways in which social media's profit-driven, addictive design can harm kids and teens.

Design features such as emoji reactions and comments, autoplay and infinite scroll, push notifications, ephemeral content, and "beautifying" filters keep kids clicking, but they can also provoke social comparison, addiction, social pressure, fear of missing out, body image issues, and more.

The consequences of these design choices are tangible to students. We spoke with several high school students from the Washington Urban Debate League and the Boston Debate League, who recently debated the topic of social media regulation.

"The 'views' and 'like' features have got to be some of the worst features that were added to social media platforms," said Richemie Chery, a high school student from Massachusetts. "It's a two-edged sword kind of thing, where if you get a lot of likes, then 'Yay,' you look relevant, but then if you don't get a lot of likes and/or views, it can completely crush one's confidence. Especially knowing that you're not the only one who's able to see it."

Kids also understand the addictive intent of autoplay and infinite scroll.

"One of the challenges I face with social media is getting off it," said KesUranNu Baylor, a high school student from Maryland. "Once I get on, I have to really force myself off it because it's so addictive. All I'm doing is scrolling, but I'm subconsciously looking for an end so I can feel accomplished. But the scrolling never stops."

Recommendation algorithms, designed to hold attention at all costs, are uniquely insidious and exploitative.

For example, Facebook intentionally chose to prioritize hateful, divisive, sensationalist content over neutral and positive content in order to increase engagement. Algorithms recommend extremist and conspiratorial content on YouTube and TikTok , sending users down radicalizing rabbit holes. Instagram's algorithms amplify content that promotes social comparison , body dissatisfaction , decreased self-esteem, depressive symptoms , and anxiety around the pressure to look perfect, particularly among girls and young women . Instagram's algorithms also recommend self-harm to unsuspecting users, resulting in replication of the harm techniques shown.

These algorithms have also facilitated the rise of social media influencers -- a glamorized and seemingly attainable path to wealth and fame through the production of content. The potential to become influential incentivizes increased use of social media, which also increases platform revenue.

"The feature that I think makes social media worse is the fact that regular everyday people can be social media influencers and influence any and everyone's life," said Xyra Mercer, a high school student from Massachusetts. "The fact that this can be displayed with a blue check and title of 'public figure' under their name puts them on a pedestal. That makes little kids or young students with impressionable minds look up to them and think, 'I want to be like them,' which is a toxic mindset."

The social media platforms are aware that their design choices encourage addiction and harm kids, but they answer only to profit. If platforms are left unregulated, our children will suffer unimaginable long-term consequences. Given that kids experience these harms en masse, by the hundreds of millions, the consequences of exploitative social media will profoundly shape the future of our society.

Congress is facing a watershed opportunity to make the internet healthier for kids and everyone else. And it is encouraging to see increased bipartisan activity in Congress to hold Big Tech accountable. Congressional leaders have proposed multiple pieces of legislation to advance everything from Section 230 reform to improved child data privacy laws and and measures that could end or significantly curb manipulative marketing and design.

Social media companies will not reform themselves -- they need incentives beyond their business models. We cannot, in good conscience, allow the continued online exploitation of children.

Katie Joseff is the misinformation and disinformation specialist at Common Sense. Her work focuses on platform accountability.

Debate On Social Media Has Done More Harm Than Good To Students

BY SIR ISRAEL UCHENNA

In the age of social media dominance, its influence on various aspects of our lives, including education, cannot be ignored. While social media platforms offer numerous benefits, such as enhanced connectivity, access to information, and opportunities for self-expression, there is an ongoing debate regarding the impact of social media on students. Today, we delve into the contentious topic of whether the debate on social media has done more harm than good to students.

As a teacher blogger, I believe it is important to explore and analyze both sides of this debate. By presenting arguments from various perspectives, we can foster a balanced understanding of the potential consequences and benefits associated with social media discussions among students. This topic has been previously assigned as a debate topic in my own classroom, where students passionately expressed their viewpoints, generating insightful discussions.

In this article, I will share points for and against the notion that the debate on social media has done more harm than good to students. By examining both sides of the argument, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential impact that social media debates can have on students’ well-being, academic performance, and overall development.

Whether you are an educator, a student, or a concerned parent, understanding the implications of social media debates is crucial in today’s digitally connected world. By critically analyzing the positives and negatives, we can equip ourselves with the necessary knowledge to navigate social media responsibly and foster healthy conversations in online spaces.

So, without further ado, let’s dive into the discussion and explore the arguments surrounding the impact of social media debates on students.

In today’s digitally connected world, social media has undeniably become a dominant force in shaping our daily lives. From sharing personal experiences to discussing important social issues, online platforms offer a seemingly endless space for conversation and debate. However, as educators and concerned individuals, it is crucial to critically examine the impact of these digital debates, particularly on our students. With mounting evidence and growing concerns, it is evident that the debate on social media has done more harm than good for students. Below here, we delve into the multifaceted aspects of this issue, exploring the detrimental effects that social media debates can have on students’ well-being, academic growth, and overall development. By recognizing and addressing these concerns, we can foster a safer and healthier online environment for our students, allowing them to navigate the digital realm responsibly and effectively.

However, here are ten points supporting the idea that the debate on social media has done more harm than good to students:

Cyberbullying: Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for cyberbullying, with students often being targeted for their opinions. Online debates can escalate quickly and turn into personal attacks, causing emotional distress and negatively impacting students’ mental health.
Misinformation: Social media is rife with misinformation and fake news. Students engaging in debates on these platforms may come across inaccurate information, leading to the dissemination of false or misleading ideas, undermining critical thinking skills.
Lack of civility: Online debates often lack the civility and respect that are necessary for healthy discourse. Students may encounter hostility, trolling, and offensive language, which can create a hostile environment and discourage constructive dialogue.
Time-consuming distraction: Engaging in debates on social media can be time-consuming, diverting students’ attention away from their academic responsibilities. Spending excessive time on these platforms can impact their ability to focus on studies and perform well in school.
Echo chambers: Social media algorithms tend to create echo chambers, where students are exposed to like-minded individuals and opinions. This limits their exposure to diverse perspectives and hinders the development of critical thinking skills and the ability to consider alternative viewpoints.
Unrealistic standards: Social media often portrays an idealized version of reality, leading students to compare themselves to others and develop feelings of inadequacy. Engaging in debates on these platforms can reinforce unrealistic standards and negatively impact students’ self-esteem.
Digital divide: Not all students have equal access to social media platforms, creating a digital divide. Debates conducted primarily on social media can exclude those who lack internet access or familiarity with these platforms, further exacerbating educational inequalities.
Distorted communication: Social media debates rely heavily on written communication, which can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. The absence of nonverbal cues and tone of voice makes it challenging to convey intentions accurately, potentially fueling conflicts and creating a negative atmosphere.
Lack of accountability: Anonymity and pseudonyms on social media platforms can promote a lack of accountability. Students may engage in disrespectful or harmful behavior without facing immediate consequences, perpetuating a toxic environment.
Deterioration of face-to-face communication skills: Spending excessive time engaging in online debates can hinder students’ ability to engage in meaningful face-to-face conversations. The reliance on written communication can diminish interpersonal skills and compromise their ability to effectively communicate in real-life situations.

These points highlight some of the potential negative effects that social media debates can have on students. It is important to consider these factors while engaging in online discussions and to foster a supportive and respectful environment for students to express their opinions.

In the digital age, social media has revolutionized the way we connect, communicate, and engage in debate. While concerns about the impact of social media on students persist, it is important to recognize the immense benefits it brings. Contrary to the notion that the debate on social media has done more harm than good to students, we will explore the myriad advantages that online discussions offer. From fostering critical thinking skills and expanding perspectives to promoting collaboration and empowering student voices, social media debates have proven to be a valuable tool in today’s educational landscape. Below, we delve into the positive aspects of social media debates, highlighting how they enhance students’ intellectual growth, prepare them for real-world challenges, and provide opportunities for personal development. By embracing the potential of social media as an educational resource, we can harness its power to create a vibrant learning environment for our students.

Here are ten points against the idea that the debate on social media has done more harm than good to students:

Expanded access to diverse perspectives: Social media platforms have opened up avenues for students to engage in debates and discussions with individuals from different backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This exposure helps broaden their horizons, foster empathy, and encourage the development of critical thinking skills.
Increased engagement and participation: Online debates on social media provide students with opportunities to actively participate in discussions that go beyond the confines of their immediate social circles. It allows for a wider exchange of ideas, enhances their communication skills, and encourages active citizenship.
Promotes information sharing and learning: Social media platforms serve as a vast repository of information, enabling students to access a wide range of resources, research findings, and educational content. Engaging in debates online can facilitate the sharing of knowledge, fostering intellectual growth and curiosity.
Enhances digital literacy skills: Participating in online debates requires students to navigate through various sources, evaluate information for credibility, and critically analyze arguments. These activities contribute to the development of digital literacy skills, which are essential in today’s information-driven world.
Encourages self-expression and confidence: Social media platforms offer a space for students to express their opinions, engage in debates, and find their voice. By participating in online discussions, students can build confidence in expressing their thoughts and ideas, fostering personal growth and empowerment.
. Opportunities for collaboration and teamwork: Social media debates can facilitate collaborative learning experiences, where students can work together to explore complex topics, exchange ideas, and build upon each other’s knowledge. This teamwork cultivates important skills such as cooperation, negotiation, and compromise.
Platform for activism and social change: Social media has played a significant role in mobilizing student-led movements and raising awareness about critical social issues. Online debates provide a platform for students to advocate for causes they believe in, fostering a sense of agency and empowering them to drive positive change.
Bridge between classroom and real-world issues: Social media debates can bridge the gap between classroom learning and real-world issues. By discussing current events and societal matters online, students can apply their knowledge to real-life contexts, fostering a deeper understanding of the world around them.
Encourages critical thinking and argumentation skills: Participating in social media debates requires students to think critically, construct well-reasoned arguments, and defend their viewpoints. This process strengthens their critical thinking and argumentation skills, essential for academic success and future professional endeavors.
Networking and exposure to diverse opportunities: Social media platforms provide students with networking opportunities, connecting them with professionals, experts, and mentors in their fields of interest. Engaging in debates on these platforms can expose students to new opportunities, internships, and academic resources, expanding their horizons and paving the way for future growth.

These points present a counter-perspective, highlighting the potential benefits and positive aspects of social media debates for students. It is important to acknowledge and navigate these advantages while addressing the challenges associated with online discussions, creating a balanced and responsible approach to engaging in debates on social media.

THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IS CAUSING MORE HARM THAN GOOD AMONG YOUTHS TODAY

Related Papers

Negative Effects of Social Media on Children

Ayşenur Temur

At the present time, the whole world has been under the effect of popular culture. It has become so easy to communicate with each other and to know about everyday lives of the society by communication networks. Due to the development of technology, internet is the most common way for everybody from all over the world. Nowadays, people are only one click away from the news, ideas and images. Furthermore, people are spending very much time on social media among all communication ways of internet. Nevertheless, social media may bring unwelcome influences especially to children if it can not be used under control. For example, "Social media applications are just tools. Negative situations occur because of misuse of the tool. This may be because a child is too young to use the tool or it is a situation the child is not ready for developmentally " (O’Keeffe, 2016, p.843). In the light of this information, it can be said that children are very open to risky behaviours because of social media during young ages. In today’s world of widespread usage of communication networks, social media has negative effects on the lives of children in the matter of violence, addiction and psychology.

Gilberto Marzano , velta lubkina

pranshu sharma

Proceeding ICoCSPA

Zainal Abidin Achmad

Ask.fm has become a medium for doing the bullying by targeting the teenagers. Since this media has become one of the favorite social media for teenagers in Indonesia. The main activities undertaken by teenagers through Ask.fm is asking questions and answering questions. When interacting through Ask.fm, the owner of this account can do so by using the original name as their identity or as anonymous. The anonymous feature provided by Ask.fm is often used to do bullying on teenagers. However, there are a lot of questions and answers that are roughly even led to an insult to the harassment. This can be described as Cyber bullying through the social media. Cyber bullying on teenagers is defined as a situation in which a child, pre-teen, or teen repeatedly tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or being targeted by children or other teenagers by using short message service, e-mail, social media, or a wide variety of other types of digital communication media. This study uses the theory of determination of technology and the theory of New Media. The theory explains that the new media is bringing new forms of interaction between people to a personal relationship in a way that cannot be done by the media earlier. The new media also contains the power and limitation, losses and gains, and vacillation. To explore the perception of teenagers about the Cyber bullying, this study used qualitative research methods with in-depth interviews. The teenagers who become the informants of study and interviewed have the following requirements: teenagers who have Ask.fm account; teenagers who have experienced bullying; and teenagers who have committed bullying through Ask.fm.

Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-journal of Psychology

Antonella Brighi

Prof.Santosh Kumar Swain

Currently, we live in the digital age, which significantly affects the social and educational process of school-going children. [1] Social media or digital media have an impact on the cognitive, academic, social, and moral development of school-going children and adolescent age groups. [1] Social media platforms encompass a range of web-based social networking, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Children often use these social media platforms in a variety of ways. [2] Social media has become so widely used in the modern world that it is almost omnipresent. Social media has boosted communication between people, creating a special chance to spread behavioral treatments. [3] School-going children are susceptible to cyberbullying, sexual experimentation, and sleep deprivation because of their restricted ability to self-regulate and their vulnerability to peer influence. [4] This review article aims to explore the impacts of social networking platforms among school-going children in light of growing concern over harmful aspects of children's and teens' misuse of social media. methodS of lIterature Search We looked for studies on the effects of social media on children in school using a variety of techniques. Initially, we conducted an Internet search using databases such as Scopus, Pub Med, Medline, and Google Scholar. A search plan was formulated in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Our search method initially identified abstracts of published materials, while additional research articles necessitated manual retrieval through citation exploration. We assessed the eligibility of observational research, studies comparing different groups, collections of cases, and individual case descriptions for inclusion alongside randomized controlled trials. In total, there were 65 articles identified, comprising 23 case reports, 18 case series, and 24 original articles [Figure 1]. This article focuses on the influence of social media on school-age children and teenagers. Given the limited number of studies addressing this topic, this review paper establishes a foundational understanding from which future prospective trials could be developed. prevalence Currently, social media has become deeply embedded in our daily lives, particularly among young people. The utilization of social

International Journal of Innovative Research and Development

Usman Saadu

Faye Mishna

Office of Education Research School of Cultural Professional Learning Faculty of Education

phillip slee

Dr. Zafar Iqbal

The purpose of this research is to highlight the universal issue, cyber-bulling. In this paper causes, effects, victims, legislation and precautions of the cyber-bulling have been described. The cyber-world has many problems one of them is cyber-bulling, it means to insult or defame some one on the social media. This trend has increased and had put to death many lives. After politicians and media persons, teachers have also been victimized. The ratio is increasing gradually. Cyber-bullies can attack on the person of any age, area, religion, gender, race, creed, etc. According to one recent study, every 6th person has been victimized of cyber-bulling. The ratio of girls is double than the boys. It is concern mostly with the teenagers. It has damaged the teenagers than any other age group. Its harmful crime and can be stop by making legislation, implementation, and by social awareness. Social Media has also provided special buttons to register the complaint against it. However, after adopting the precautions, one can save from the negative effects of cyber-bulling.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Statistics & Management Systems

Nashra Javed

Andre Alecsander

Ciaran Tilley

Kedon Clarke

Mariya Stoilova

Acta Technologica Dubnicae

Stanisław Juszczyk

Handbook of Research on Children's Consumption of Digital Media

Mustafa ERSOY

Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books

Raphael Cohen-almagor

Hiteshi Ajmera , Viral Bhatt

UGC Approved Journal No. 49321 Impact Factor : 6.125 Shodh Drishti (An International Peer Reviewed Refereed Research Journal), Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2024 ISSN : 0976-6650

Shah Din Choudhary

Estefanh Betzy

Prabhakar S Rao

Editor IJIRMF

Madiha Zainab , Hamna Baqai , AAtiqa Ejaz , Areej Arshad

Damian Maher

Madhu Singh , Deep Kumar

Atlantis Press

Norainna Besar

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Rocco Russo

Karen moross

William Kist , Kristen Srsen , Beatriz Bishop

Philippa Collin , Amanda Third , Teresa Swist

OIRC JOURNALS

Dr. Majid Sadeeq

We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

IMAGES

Social Media do harm good on People?
Does Social Media Do More Harm Than Good?
≫ Impact of Social Media on Quality of Life Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
(PDF) THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IS CAUSING MORE HARM THAN GOOD AMONG YOUTHS TODAY
⚡ The internet has done more harm than good debate. Internet Does More Harm Than Good (Oppositon
Does Social Media Do More Harm Than Good?

COMMENTS

Does Social Media Do More Harm Than Good for Society?
Media has always had the power to influence our society, but it wasn't until the social media boom that we saw it on this scale and magnitude. While it has the potential for good, social media has been also been harmful to society because of how we use it. Here's how social media is harming our mental health, self-image, communication skills ...
Social Media Brings More Harm Than Good Essay
Although social media has been beneficial for us regardless of our age, it has brought about many consequences as well. Some people argue that social media is good for us because it has allowed us to widen our social circles. (Wallace)2014 said that "in the survey of more than 1,000 13- to 17-year-olds about how they view their digital lives ...
Essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good for Students
250 Words Essay on Social Media Does Harm Than Good Introduction. Social media has become a big part of our lives. Many people use it every day to talk with friends, share pictures, and learn new things. But, even if it seems fun and helpful, social media can actually cause more harm than good. Time Wasting. Firstly, social media can eat up a ...
Social Media Does More Harm Than Good Argumentative Essay
The Dark Side of Social Media: An Argumentative Essay Social Media: A Double-Edged Sword. In the fast-paced digital age, social media has emerged as a prominent communication platform. While it has undoubtedly brought people closer, it has also sparked numerous debates regarding its influence on society. One such pressing issue is the argument ...
A conversation about reducing the harms of social media
First, set a good example by putting your own screens down when interacting with your children. Talk to your teen about the pros and cons of social media: while it can be fun, it can also become a distraction. Set limits on your child's social media use. Most importantly, talk to your children about their experiences, including who they are ...
Is social media bad for you? The evidence and the unknowns
A similar study conducted in 2016 involving 1,700 people found a threefold risk of depression and anxiety among people who used the most social media platforms. Reasons for this, they suggested ...
Social media harms teens' mental health, mounting evidence shows. What now?
The concern, and the studies, come from statistics showing that social media use in teens ages 13 to 17 is now almost ubiquitous. Two-thirds of teens report using TikTok, and some 60 percent of ...
Social media use can be positive for mental health
January 6, 2020—Mesfin Awoke Bekalu, research scientist in the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, discusses a new study he co-authored on associations between social media use and mental health and well-being. What is healthy vs. potentially problematic social media use? Our study has brought preliminary evidence to answer this question.
The Harm Done by Social Media
Mental Health Problems: Depression, Suicide, Narcissism, Eating Disorders, Loneliness. The use of social media has been implicated in a broad range of psychological problems (1). Many of these are ...
Can Social Media Have A Structure That Does More Good Than Harm?
KELLY: So you're talking about designing a social media platform with a fundamentally different business model than the existing ones have. TUFEKCI: Absolutely - because once it's infrastructure ...
Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In
Whether it's social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. - Deborah Glasofer. Glasofer: Whether it's social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A ...
Social Media: Beneficial or Harmful?
Firstly, in order to fairly and properly assess the benefits or harms of social media, the latter should be distinguished from the internet. For example, it is stated that "the notion that the Internet is bad for you seems premised on the idea that the Internet is one thing—a monolith" (Goldsmith 597). In other words, the internet is not ...
Argumentative Essay about Social Media • Free Examples
Positive and Negative Effects of Social Media. Essay grade: Excellent. 2 pages / 1139 words. Introduction: In today's era, Social Media has been the most important part of everyone's life, from children to adults, be it as entertainment, shopping, education or a business tool.
Social Media: Does More Harm Than Good
Grade: 5. Download. In today's digital age, social media has become an integral part of our lives. It allows us to connect with friends and family, share our experiences, and stay informed about the world. However, there is an ongoing debate about whether social media does more harm than good. While it has undeniable benefits, it also brings ...
Is Social Media Doing More Harm Than Good?
Many social media feeds include dance routines, selfies and makeup trends. These posts may seem harmless, but when users—especially young people—are constantly re-minded of what they don't have, it can take a toll on their mental health. Many start to compare them-selves to celebrities and influencers. They wonder why their bodies aren ...
How Harmful Is Social Media?
In April, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt published an essay in The Atlantic in which he sought to explain, as the piece's title had it, "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have ...
Essay-Social Media Does More Harm Than Good
Social media does more harm than good according to the author. It negatively impacts mental health by increasing addiction, stress, depression and anxiety as people prefer social media interactions over face-to-face contact. Social media also creates unrealistic expectations of life by only showing curated highlights without reality. While social media allows keeping in touch with distant ...
Social Media Is Doing More Harm Than Good
For that reason, social media platforms are designed to exploit kids' and teens' attention and extract their data for the sake of advertising. And it's working: For example, from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 of this year, Facebook made $82.3 billion from advertising. During the same period, YouTube made $20.2 billion from advertising.
Debate On Social Media Has Done More Harm Than Good To Students
While social media platforms offer numerous benefits, such as enhanced connectivity, access to information, and opportunities for self-expression, there is an ongoing debate regarding the impact of social media on students. Today, we delve into the contentious topic of whether the debate on social media has done more harm than good to students.
Debate: Social media content moderation may do more harm than good for
Social media has become ubiquitous in the lives of young people today. Meanwhile, rates of mental health challenges among children and adolescents have soared to the extent of being declared a national emergency (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021).Social media platforms are increasingly moderating mental health content to reduce user harm, but moderation policies should not come at the ...
(Pdf) the Use of Social Media Is Causing More Harm Than Good Among
Due to the reliance of students and youths on the social media, students do not have personal skills in writing essays, doing assignments and speaking of good English. ... CONCLUSION: The Chief Judge Sir, some evidence seems to abound that, on average, social media does more harm than good in youths and adults alike. This is particularly ...