Caveat – this article is a follow-up article to the one we posted yesterday. “Why Parents and Caregivers Need to Be Cautious When Reading About Research Findings Specific To Technology and Teens” (1)
As our discussions and articles on the emotional, psychological, physical, and social effects of technology and social media on youth reach a wider audience, we have noticed two recurring arguments that are directed at us. These arguments question the approach we take when evaluating research and policy decisions regarding youth and technology use. Below, we address these two arguments and provide counter-arguments rooted in evidence and reasoned analysis.
Argument #1: “Show us the research that supports that technology and social media will not harm youth.”
At first glance, this challenge may seem reasonable, after all, if social media and technology were completely safe, there should be research confirming this. However, this line of reasoning presents a logical fallacy known as “shifting the burden of proof” or “proving a negative”, a common strategy used in debate. A common phrased used in research applies to this argument, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Just because there are no studies showing harm to children who stay off social media does not mean that harm does not exist. It may simply mean that the research hasn’t been conducted, or that studies haven’t been designed in a way that would detect such harm. Most parents and caregivers don’t know that scientific research does not typically operate by proving that something is harmless; rather, it assesses risk based on available evidence.
When someone challenges you to prove the positive outcomes of something, they are essentially placing the responsibility on you to demonstrate that something works or has benefits. This can sometimes be a reasonable request, but it can also be a rhetorical tactic to dismiss an argument without providing good evidence-based counter evidence.
For example, if someone says, “Prove that social media has positive effects on teens,” without acknowledging existing research or providing their own counterarguments, they are shifting the burden of proof onto you. This can be problematic if they are making an implicit claim (e.g., that social media is harmful) but refusing to provide “good” evidence-based research to support their position
For instance, we do not demand research proving that walking in a park will not cause harm; instead, we evaluate whether credible studies indicate that parks are dangerous. Similarly, research on technology and social media should be examined in terms of actual, measured harm rather than the absence of harm. The burden of proof should be on demonstrating substantial risk, not on proving an impossible negative.
In the case of social media and youth, studies have produced mixed findings. Some research suggests potential risks, particularly for vulnerable populations, while other studies highlight benefits such as social connectivity, educational and employment opportunities, and creative expression. Rather than assuming harm, we should take a nuanced approach, that looks at each child, that considers both risks and benefits, addressing real concerns while avoiding fear-based conclusions. Every child is unique, and we believe our approach as parents and caregivers to their use of technology should reflect that uniqueness.
Argument #2: “Even if the negative effects reported in a study have very little significance, shouldn’t we still act on it when it comes to our kids because harm, no matter what the degree, is something that we need to protect our kids from?”
Again, this perspective is understandable given that parents and caregivers want to minimize all possible harm to their children. However, the key issue here is not whether we should act when we see harm in the research, but whether the data actually indicates that there is “real” harm. If a study’s findings are based on statistical noise, meaning the results are weak, unreliable, or over interpreted, then using that data to justify widespread changes can be misleading and even counterproductive.
As an example, imagine a car mechanic who tests the brakes of a vehicle and finds a slight issue with one of the brake pads. If they were to immediately recommend replacing the entire braking system without fully assessing the problem, it could lead to unnecessary costs and disruption. Similarly, if a study finds a minor connection between screen use and mental health issues but doesn’t account for other influencing factors, acting on these findings without deeper analysis could result in overreactions or misguided policy.
More importantly, overreacting to weak or misinterpreted data can divert attention from genuine risks that do require action. If we focus all our energy on regulating social media with weak evidence while ignoring well-documented issues like childhood poverty, family violence, inadequate mental health resources, or educational disparities, we may be attempting to target and solve the wrong problems.
We strongly believe in addressing real risks to children’s well-being, but our actions should be guided by strong, replicable research rather than emotional reactions to weak or inconclusive studies. Good policy and parenting decisions require evidence that is not only statistically significant but also meaningful in real-world contexts.
A balanced approach recognizes that technology and social media are neither inherently good nor bad. Instead of blanket restrictions or fear-driven narratives, we should advocate for media literacy, healthy digital habits, and evidence-based interventions where necessary.
A well-informed and balanced approach to youth, technology, and social media requires careful consideration of both risks and benefits. Rather than reacting to weak or inconclusive research with broad restrictions, we should focus on strong, replicable evidence that truly reflects real-world risks. Emotional responses to alarming headlines may feel justified, but they can lead to misplaced priorities that overlook more pressing challenges facing youth. Instead, we should prioritize digital literacy, healthy technology habits, and nuanced discussions that recognize the individuality of each child. By doing so, we empower young people to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly, without succumbing to fear-based decision-making.
By maintaining a critical eye on the validity of research and focusing on the broader context of youth well-being, we can ensure that our actions are truly in the best interest of our children.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech not No Tech
References:
