Carter Smith

30 October 2024

As we enter the final months of 2024, it remains to be seen how history will remember this year. With highly consequential elections occurring in the United States and across the globe, war raging on in Europe and the Middle East, and generative AI permeating our everyday lives, one of the year’s most consequential developments is at risk of being overshadowed: a reckoning of social media and its broader societal impacts—particularly regarding adolescent mental health.

In order to fully understand the extent to which social media usage has proliferated, we must first become acquainted with its broader historical context. The decade that followed the turn of the century saw the creation of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram—the trifecta that constituted the earliest days of social media. The release of the iPhone in 2007 begot the popularization of the smartphone that largely defined 2010, and it was this that made social media truly accessible to all ages [1]. According to the PEW research center, 73% of adolescents aged 13-17 reported having their own cell phone by 2015, at which point 71% of them reported using at least one form of social media [2].

Now, almost a decade removed from the advent of social media’s ubiquity [3], Americans are reflecting on its broader impact. In the years since the peak of the pandemic, we have seen a deeply polarized America unite across age and ideology regarding the net harm that social media has had on society. This sentiment isn’t exactly surprising coming from adults, as aging is generally proportional to aversion to change [4], but it is certainly unexpected from the generation that never knew a world without social media’s omnipresence. 

Last month, a study from The Harris Poll made significant headlines, as it found that almost half of Gen Z wishes that platforms like X and TikTok didn’t exist [5]. A subsequent survey from the New York Times showed that 45% of Gen Z reported that they “would not or will not allow my child to have a smartphone before reaching high school age (i.e. about 14 years old)” [6]. This is a damning impugnation of the tech industry’s failure to adequately address the mental health concerns associated with social media use, particularly among vulnerable youth populations.

Such concerns are not lost on U.S. lawmakers, as the Senate recently passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill aimed at establishing guidelines that safeguard minors from pernicious influences on social media and require platforms to disable “addicting” algorithmic features for children [7]. The last time Congress passed legislation to protect children on the Internet was in 1998; for reference, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee JD Vance would have only been 14 years old at the time.

Additionally, Dr. Vivek Murthy, the U.S. Surgeon General, wrote a damning guest essay for the New York Times this past May in which he called on Congress to require warning labels on social media platforms, akin to those now mandatory on cigarette boxes [8]. Murthy wrote that “the mental health crisis among young people is an emergency — and social media has emerged as an important contributor,” expounding that such a label “would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe.”

Despite a clear apprehension in Washington, the KOSA is not guaranteed to become law. It still has to be passed by the House, and it remains unclear whether this will occur before January of next year. While Vice President Harris and the Biden administration have championed the bill [9], Former President Trump has neglected to comment on the issue.

What’s more, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) both vehemently oppose the bill on account of what they argue would be a violation of the First Amendment, as they believe it would enable censorship, threaten the privacy of young people, and preclude them from “accessing vital resources, such as mental health materials or gender identity support” [10].

While the KOSA ostensibly presents a viable means of ameliorating the negative impacts of social media, organizations such as the ACLU astutely point out that the passing of this bill may do more harm than good. These platforms can simultaneously contribute to mental health issues and increase awareness of their existence and the availability of pertinent resources—the two are not mutually exclusive. Although social media can exacerbate existing mental health issues or activate them in those predisposed [11], it is often not the root cause. Furthermore, it is only recently that we have started taking mental health seriously, and there are certainly many young people who seldom find themselves on social media who nevertheless struggle with mental health. 

The proliferation of social media and adolescent mental health issues have indeed coincided, and while research demonstrates a significant link between the two [12], it would be highly reductive to suggest that this is the whole story. While America as a whole has started to recognize the gravity of mental health issues, there are many regions across the country where such issues are still not taken seriously. For adolescents whose parents remain ignorant, having access to the vast array of information on social media is often the only way that these individuals can identify their ailments and direct themselves to the appropriate resources. 

However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the KOSA does indeed assuage the harm done by social media to the mental health of adolescents; would the benefits truly extend beyond the short-term? Social media is a revolutionary medium of communication that has fundamentally subverted how we interact with each other in society—it is not going anywhere, whether we like it or not. Network platforms such as X, TikTok, and Instagram make up the communicative scaffolding of our modern world, and sheltering young people from these platforms may inadvertently disadvantage them in an ever-pervasive virtual landscape. To shelter adolescents from social media is to insulate them from a world that will nevertheless become their own. Given social media’s inextricability from modern life, we ought to be moving with the tide, not against it. It is only when we accept this reality that we can work towards mental health solutions that are adaptive, not reactive. Any attempt to curtail the accessibility of social media is highly unlikely to protect adolescents in a manner that outweighs the potential dangers of doing so. 

It is evident that the KOSA is a misguided attempt to address the very real issue of declining adolescent mental health, but this begs the question: what should we be doing instead? Since we know that social media is here to stay and often only serves to accentuate pre-existing ailments or trigger them in those already predisposed, congress would be better served to introduce legislation that directly addresses the root of the issue by targeting the spaces where children and adolescents spend the majority of their formative years: public schools. 

The federal government should increase targeted funding for public education, mandating that these additional resources be allocated explicitly to expanding mental health services within schools. This proposal would ensure that each district is equipped with a robust framework of emotional support services for students K-12, including but not limited to increased access to licensed counselors, clinical psychologists, and mental health screenings. Funding would be allocated such that all children would be given bi-annual screenings for depression, anxiety, and trauma-related disorders. Based on the results of the standardized screening, individuals would be referred to one of the in-house clinical psychologists for an interview as well as specialized testing for diagnostic purposes (i.e. Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I & II, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, etc.) When a student’s score meets the diagnostic criteria, they are then referred to the in-house counselor best equipped to support them. In situations where the student would benefit from psychopharmacological treatment, they would then be referred externally to a psychiatrist.

Given that there exists a significant psychiatrist shortage in the U.S. [13], one of the foremost objectives of this legislation would be subsidization that incentivizes medical students to pursue a career in the field. This would be realized through the creation of Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) programs specifically for clinical psychiatrists, the expansion of federal grants and scholarships that cover a significant portion of medical school costs for students who commit to specializing in the discipline, an increase in grants afforded to hospitals in order to fund more psychiatric residency slots, and tax credits for practicing psychiatrists. These provisions would ensure that students who are referred to a psychiatrist do not meet a dead-end in being added to an interminable waitlist.

Additionally, there would be a standardized apparatus in place wherein all students are screened for neurodevelopmental disorders such as Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. As our understanding of neurodivergence evolves, researchers have found that many children with such conditions deviate from the archetypal behavior associated with the respective disorders, consequently allowing them to fly under the radar [14]. Not only do such neurodevelopmental disorders predispose these individuals to mental health issues, but undiagnosed children are far more likely to experience mental, social, and emotional hardship due to the absence of treatment and unanswered questions regarding their differences [15]. Similar to the general mental health screening, students whose preliminary results indicated the potential for the presence of a developmental disorder would be subject to formal testing to determine whether a diagnosis is appropriate. 

Such services would allow schools to adopt a preventative approach wherein the onus is on identifying and addressing mental health susceptibilities and challenges before they escalate into crises. Additionally, a portion of the funding should be allotted for the development and implementation of a standardized mental health curriculum, facilitated by a required mental health course akin to those already obligatory in many states for physical education and general health. In this course, students would learn about what it means to be mentally healthy, the importance of digital hygiene in fostering mental well-being, and the various methods of emotional regulation. 

This investment in the mental health infrastructure of public schools is not merely an ancillary measure but a foundational step toward addressing the adolescent mental health crisis at scale. By integrating comprehensive emotional support systems directly into schools, we can ensure that all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, have their psychological needs attended to in an environment that fosters trust and continuity of care. If we are to address the root causes of adolescent mental health struggles, our efforts must extend beyond reactive measures aimed at curbing social media use and instead focus on equipping young people with the resources and emotional tools necessary to navigate an increasingly complex world.

In doing so, we recognize that while social media may exacerbate certain mental health issues, it is ultimately a symptom of a broader systemic failure to nurture the mental and emotional well-being of our nation’s youth. American society has taken the crucial first step of recognizing the adverse consequences of social media, but a deeper dive suggests that social media is but a vessel for a mental health crisis that predates it. The KOSA, while well-intentioned, would be futile at best and unconstitutional at worst. As such, Congress must change course and take the lead in providing a sustainable solution by passing legislation that allocates substantial, targeted funding to the expansion of mental health services within public schools—ensuring that every child’s mental health needs are met with the seriousness and care they deserve. If 2024 is to be the year that America apprehended the miasmic influence of social media, we must take it upon ourselves to ensure that the rest of this most consequential decade is remembered for the revolutionization of our approach to adolescent mental health, empowering generations to come to thrive in an increasingly connected world.

---

Image via Pexels Free Images

Works Cited

[1] O’Regan, G. (2016). The Smartphone and Social Media. In: Introduction to the History of Computing. Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33138-6_15

[2] Faverio, Michelle, and Olivia Sidoti. “Teens, Social Media, and Device Access Fact Sheet .” Pew Research Center, January 5, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/teens-and-social-media-fact-sheet/.

[3] Twenge, Jean M., Gabrielle N. Martin, and Brian H. Spitzberg. “Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ Media Use, 1976–2016: The Rise of Digital Media, the Decline of TV, and the (near) Demise of Print.” Psychology of Popular Media Culture 8, no. 4 (October 2019): 329–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203.

[4] Diehl, M., Wettstein, M., Spuling, S. M., & Wurm, S. (2021). Age-related change in self-perceptions of aging: Longitudinal trajectories and predictors of change. Psychology and Aging, 36(3), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000585

[5] Skiera, AJ. “What Gen Z Thinks about Its Social Media and Smartphone Usage.” Harris Poll, September 10, 2024. https://theharrispoll.com/briefs/gen-z-social-media-smart-phones/.

[6] Haidt, Jonathan, and Will Johnson. “Gen Z Has Regrets.” The New York Times, September 17, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/opinion/social-media-smartphones-harm-regret.html.

[7] Ortutay, Barbara. “What to Know about the Kids Online Safety Act That Just Passed the Senate.” AP News, July 31, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/congress-social-media-kosa-kids-online-safety-act-parents-ead646422cf84cef0d0573c3c841eb6d.

[8] Murthy, Vivek H. “Surgeon General: Why I’m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms.” The New York Times, June 17, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/opinion/social-media-health-warning.html.

[9] Harris, Kamala. “Vice President Harris’ Post on X.” X (formerly Twitter), July 30, 2024. https://x.com/VP/status/1818379694405992479?lang=en.

[10] Ortutay, Barbara. “What to Know about the Kids Online Safety Act That Just Passed the Senate.” AP News, July 31, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/congress-social-media-kosa-kids-online-safety-act-parents-ead646422cf84cef0d0573c3c841eb6d.

[11] Keles, Betul, Niall McCrae, and Annmarie Grealish. 2019. “A Systematic Review: The Influence of Social Media on Depression, Anxiety and Psychological Distress in Adolescents.” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25 (1): 79–93. doi:10.1080/02673843.2019.1590851.

[12] Elizabeth J. Ivie, Adam Pettitt, Louis J. Moses, Nicholas B. Allen, A meta-analysis of the association between adolescent social media use and depressive symptoms, Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 275, 2020, Pages 165-174, ISSN 0165-0327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.014. 

[13] Aggarwal, Rashi, Richard Balon, Eugene V. Beresin, John Coverdale, Mary K. Morreale, Anthony P. Guerrero, Alan K. Louie, and Adam M. Brenner. “Addressing Psychiatry Workforce Needs: Where Are We Now?” Academic Psychiatry 46, no. 4 (July 26, 2022): 407–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-022-01690-5.

[14] Masataka, Nobuo. “Implications of the Idea of Neurodiversity for Understanding the Origins of Developmental Disorders.” Physics of Life Reviews 20 (March 2017): 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2016.11.002.

[15] French, B., Daley, D., Groom, M., & Cassidy, S. (2023). Risks Associated With Undiagnosed ADHD and/or Autism: A Mixed-Method Systematic Review. Journal of Attention Disorders, 27(12), 1393-1410. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547231176862