Part 4: So, is it a tech panic?

Signs to identify when a moral panic is occurring

See previous: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Having analyzed both bodies of research, it is apparent that the research on social media and teen well-being shares many of the same flaws as the violent video game research. They are both largely based on correlational studies which rely on self-reported data and use poor proxies for the effect that they are trying to measure. As we saw in  Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, this alone is enough to create roadblocks for laws banning or regulating the use of social media by children. 

But, is it a tech panic? As laid out by Christopher Ferguson and Patrick Markey, researchers who long disputed the link between violent video games and aggression, there are a number of signs to help identify when a moral panic is occurring:

1. Extreme claims come before data. In the case of a moral panic, claims of harm tend to come before evidence of the harm. Public opinion comes first, shaping and creating concerns and then research follows. They flag phrases like “kids are doing X younger and younger” and “shocking new trend in youth behavior” as some prominent examples.

2. Public calls for research supporting the moral panic. After the initial concern, politicians and the public call for research to help them determine how best to address the issue. Note, they do not ask for research into the broader issue (ex. violence), but how the subject of the moral panic (ex. violent video games) contributes to the issue.

3. “Save the children” mentality. Moral panics often center around children and the impact that a piece of technology or practice has on them. Further, those that dispute the claims are often accused of not caring about children or having been paid off by industry.

These criteria certainly present in the case of violent video games and to varying extents they also apply to the debate surrounding social media and children. Of course, it is always possible that this time it is different. The public may have been wrong when they panicked about the negative impacts that would follow the waltz, and bicycles, and radio, and television, and violent video games…but this time they’re right. This could be the case, but given the many many times that society has called wolf before there should be a high bar of evidence. Otherwise, policymakers may end up passing laws with significant tradeoffs for speech and privacy without addressing the true problem. In its current state, the research on social media and adolescent mental health simply does not meet that bar.

There is a rise in mental health issues and suicide among adolescents. This needs to be taken seriously. To do so, we must seriously consider this issue as a whole and avoid falling into a tech panic. This does not mean that we should stop investigating the potential impact of social media on mental health, but we must soberly assess the research and what conclusions it truly supports.