In a recent New York Times editorial, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy has reignited the debate about the impact of digital media on public health by advocating for warning labels on social media platforms. (1) To us, his stance evokes the famous adage by philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This reflection on historical precedents underscores the need to examine our responses to new technologies with a critical eye.
Dr. Murthy’s call echoes a similar warning from the early 1980s. In 1982, then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop declared that video games could be detrimental to the health of young people, claiming that these games were addictive “body and soul.” and caused youth to become violent (2) Dr. Koop’s announcement was met with significant public concern, although he admitted that his claims were not backed by scientific evidence at the time. Koop predicted that statistical evidence supporting his concerns would soon emerge from the healthcare sector.
However, as research into the effects of video games on youth violence advanced, it became clear that Dr. Koop’s concerns were largely unfounded. (3)(4)(5)(6) The initial alarm over video games now serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for overestimating the dangers of new technologies without solid scientific backing.
In his editorial, Dr. Murthy underscores the potential risks of social media, particularly its impact on mental health. He cites scientific and medical research that highlights issues such as increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems among young users. This call to action suggests that the Surgeon General believes the risks posed by social media are significant enough to warrant immediate intervention, similar to the early warnings about video games.
However, a critical aspect of Dr. Murthy’s argument is his selective presentation of evidence that he cited. While he draws on research that supports his thesis, he does not address the multitude of current studies that offer a more nuanced or even contradictory view of social media’s impact. (7) For instance, some research suggests that social media can have positive effects, such as fostering social connections and providing support networks, especially for marginalized groups. By omitting these perspectives, Dr. Murthy’s editorial may present a somewhat skewed view of the evidence-based scientific research. This fact is echoed by others as well (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)
The historical parallel between the video game scare of the 1980s and the current debate over social media highlights the importance of a balanced and evidence-based approach to public health warnings. As we consider Dr. Murthy’s call for warning labels on social media, it is crucial to remember the lessons from Dr. Koop’s era – the initial fears about new technologies can often be tempered by rigorous and comprehensive research.
In Dr. Murthy’s opinion article, he also drew the analogy between tobacco warning labels and his idea of implementing social media warning labels. Dr. Murthy stated:
“Evidence from tobacco studies shows that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior. When asked if a warning from the surgeon general would prompt them to limit or monitor their children’s social media use, 76 percent of people in one recent survey of Latino parents said yes.”
We acknowledge that research supports the effectiveness of warning labels (14) in the context of tobacco. However, it is important to note that the 76% statistic that was quoted pertains to adult parents, not youth. Also, social media, unlike cigarettes are not ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by the body. Yes, the research supports that social media poses both risks and potential harms for “some”, but also real benefits, for the majority of teens and young people, unlike alcohol or tobacco!
Why does this matter? Researcher and digital literacy educator Diana Graber, in an article for Psychology Today (14) , provides insight:
“While the expectation that parents would read these warnings and then forbid their teens from using social media sounds ideal in theory, in practice, most teens sign up for and use social media without parental oversight at all. Already, social media platforms offer lengthy privacy policies, terms of use, and community guidelines meant to safeguard and guide behavior, yet these go largely unread. Would a surgeon general’s warning be any different? Or would it be just another thing for teens to ignore and swipe away in their eagerness to socialize online?”
Having interacted with over 640,000 teens in our presentations, we fully agree with Diana’s perspective.
Moving forward, presenters, policymakers, and health professionals should strive to present a balanced view that includes all relevant research, acknowledging both the potential risks and benefits of social media. This approach will ensure that any actions taken are informed by the best available evidence and are more likely to achieve the desired public health outcomes without causing unnecessary alarm. (16)
The call for warning labels on social media by Dr. Vivek Murthy is an unwarranted call to action in the public discourse surrounding the ongoing debate about youth, digital media, and mental health that is based more upon emotion and opinion -we get it. However, it is essential to critically evaluate this stance by considering all sides of the evidence-based research (7) and learning from past experiences with similar technologies. By doing so, we can avoid repeating past mistakes and better navigate the complex relationship between youth, technology, and mental health in today’s onlife world.
As one well-respected academic researcher in this field of study stated to us in an email, “ I’ve been so frustrated by the US Surgeon General’s remarks that essentially encourage the use of emotion and opinion to drive social media reform.- Damn the research ” – We AGREE!
One more thought – we also agree with Canadian researchers Dr. Tracey Vaillancourt and Professor Sheri Magiidan – instead of investing time, effort, and money in legislation for warning labels, a better way of supporting youth should be on digital literacy education, funding for school mental health counselors, and expanding opportunities for youth extracurricular activities so that it is affordable for all families no matter what their socio-economic status .(17)
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
References:
1/ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/opinion/social-media-health-warning.html
2/ https://newsletter.pessimistsarchive.org/p/when-the-surgeon-general-warned-about
3/ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171474
4/ https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049?journalCode=cyber
5/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563220303885
10/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-surgeon-general-is-wrong-social-media-doesnt-need-warning-labels
12/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/20/opinion/warning-labels-social-media-apps-vivek-murthy/
13/ https://www.fosi.org/policy-research/social-media-does-not-cause-cancer
