When it comes to addressing public health issues, especially surrounding the use of social media and technology by youth, the weight of evidence based on good research is crucial in making informed decisions when it comes to implementing digital literacy education and effective legislative policies.
However, the dilemma lies in the hands of parents, caregivers, educators, and policymakers who are faced with the task of determining the appropriate level of evidence required to make informed decisions regarding the real consequences of technology on youth, rather than succumbing to decisions driven by unfounded fear and moral panic. This is why we need to turn to good evidence-based research to help parents, caregivers, educators, and legislative creators in this decision-making process
Drawing from our extensive background in law enforcement and collaboration with civil lawyers, we have encountered two frequently employed legal standards of evidence: “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal court and “balance of probability” in civil court. This article delves into the importance of evidence-based decision-making and examines how these two standards apply within the context of contraindications specific to the use of social media, technology, and our children.
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a keystone in Canadian and US criminal law, requiring the highest level of certainty before convicting an individual. However, applying this standard to the positive or negative effects of social media and technology can be challenging due to complex confounding factors, and the evolving nature of today’s onlife world.
There are those who promote that the current youth mental health crisis requires swift action to prevent harm given their belief that social media and technology is the main cause of the youth mental health crisis.
Some argue that waiting for conclusive evidence based upon good longitudinal research that meets the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, can lead to delays in implementing crucial interventions, further endangering the mental health of our kids. Relying solely on this stringent standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” may not be practical or feasible “if” quick decisions are necessary to protect the well-being of youth.
“Balance of Probability”
In civil law, the standard of “balance of probability” is the evidence needed to find fault. This standard requires a determination based on the “preponderance” of evidence, where the weight of evidence leans more towards one side than the other. It does not require absolute certainty of causation, but relies on the fact that there is a strong correlation that “A” likely caused “B”.
Using the “balance of probability” standard recognizes that public health decisions often involve uncertainties and incomplete information. It allows for action to be taken based on the best available evidence, even if it does not provide absolute certainty. This standard is particularly relevant in situations where the potential harm from inaction outweighs the risk of acting on less conclusive evidence.
Applying These Evidentiary Standards to Social Media and Technology
Public health issues often require a combination of good evidence-based peer-reviewed scientific/medical research, and expert opinions to interpret the research. Some would say that the weight of evidence, rather than the absolute certainty of the evidence, is all that is needed to address social media and technology challenges effectively.
There are some who will argue that the number of correlational research studies demonstrating the negative impact of social media and technology on youth, far outweighs those indicating positive effects. However, the crucial factor to consider should be the quality of the research conducted. In other words – garbage in, garbage out. Merely having a greater number of studies, whether positive or negative, does not determine the superiority of one side’s argument. This is not how research operates.
Some will say that waiting for causational evidence to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is causing harm when it comes to social media and technology use by both youth and adults. Therefore, decisions to implement protective measures and legislation should be made on a balance of probabilities based on the empirical and correlational evidence available.
However, sometimes correlational research also does not necessarily equal causation. In a study (1) that observed a positive correlation between ice cream consumption and crime rates, the initial findings suggested that as ice cream sales increased, so did the incidence of crime. However, further investigation revealed that there was no causal relationship between the two variables. Instead, it was found that both ice cream sales and crime rates increased during the summer months due to higher temperatures. The correlation between the two variables was simply coincidental, and a common underlying confounding factor, such as warmer weather, was the true cause of the observed correlation. This example highlights the importance of conducting further research and considering additional confounding factors to determine causal relationships accurately.
Having said this, it is essential to maintain a rigorous scientific approach, even when using the “balance of probability” standard. Transparent and well-designed correlational or causational studies that are peer-reviewed, are key in minimizing biases and ensuring the reliability of the evidence. Continuous monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation of interventions based on new evidence are also critical to maintaining an evidence-based approach.
However, here’s the challenge – expert consensus on the existing correlational research on social media and its effects on mental health is problematic (2)(3)(4)
We believe that evidence-based decision-making plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the emotional, psychological, physical, and social well-being of youth. While the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” holds value in making informed decisions, it can be argued that applying it strictly to social media and technology “could” impede timely action and jeopardize public safety.
The standard of “balance of probability” does provide a more pragmatic approach, enabling decision-makers to act in the face of uncertainties while considering the best available evidence. However, we need to also concern ourselves that such a pragmatic approach does not create a “Nirvana Fallacy” – a tendency to assume there is a perfect solution to a particular problem such as a no cellphone or no social media policy or legislation until a certain age or certain grade level.
Embracing evidence-based decision-making enables parents, caregivers, educators, researchers, and policymakers to make informed choices regarding the use of social media among youth. By doing so, they can navigate the onlife world responsibly and make decisions that prioritize the well-being of young individuals.
Yes, legal trials need to reach verdicts, but when it comes to policy and legislative decisions surrounding social media and technology, there’s always the option of not making any changes if the statistical evidence doesn’t lead to a strong enough conclusion based upon all the evidence.
One example of legislation being created based upon a moral panic, rather than good research, but later removed due to lack of supporting evidence – the Prohibition era in the United States. In 1919, the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, which banned the production, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages. The intent behind this amendment was to reduce crime, corruption, and the perceived social problems associated with alcohol consumption.
However, over time, it became clear that the prohibition of alcohol led to numerous unintended consequences. Instead of reducing crime, it gave rise to organized crime syndicates that profited from bootlegging and illegal alcohol production.
Additionally, studies and evidence emerged indicating that alcohol prohibition was ineffective in achieving its intended goals. Ultimately, in 1933, the 21st Amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th Amendment and ending the era of Prohibition.
Another more recent example of legislation being created, but later removed due to lack of supporting evidence is the criminalization of marijuana. For many years, marijuana was classified and criminalized as a controlled substance in both the United States and Canada and subject to strict criminal penalties.
However, as scientific research and public opinion evolved, it became evident that the criminalization of marijuana had limited benefits and came with significant social and economic costs. Studies indicated that marijuana was not as harmful as previously believed and had potential medical benefits. As a result, here in Canada and in many States in the US, legislation was changed and the personal use of marijuana has been decriminalized.
The repeal of prohibition and the changes in marijuana legislation serve as two notable examples where legislation was created with good “moral” intentions but were later removed due to the lack of supporting evidence for their effectiveness and the negative consequences they brought about.
An argument can be made that the above two examples are specific to adults and did not apply to youth – Agreed. However, what about youth laws surrounding curfews that have been rescinded. These laws were originally implemented with the intention of promoting safety and the belief that they would reduce juvenile delinquency and crime rates. Research found that these laws did little, if anything to reduce juvenile crime rates. By creating these curfew laws, it led to youth being arrested and forced into the criminal justice system unnecessarily. Could the same thing happen with legislation that targets youth and their use of technology and social media?
So, based upon what I have shared in this posting, what standard of evidence should we consider, especially when it comes to technology and social media specific to the creation of legislation and laws surrounding its use by youth? – it’s our opinion that the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be the benchmark. This is especially important given that such tech and social media legislation could impose punitive legal consequences on youth that could be enforced by the government.
Although the balance of probability approach to social media and technology use may be appropriate when it comes to family rules, we strongly disagree that it should be used in creating legislation and laws that apply to youth specific to their uses of technology and social media.
It is crucial to acknowledge that a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence can still establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. A good example – Alex Murdaugh who was recently convicted of murdering his wife and son in the United States. Murdaugh’s conviction was primarily built upon the “preponderance” of circumstantial evidence to prove proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the context of this article, this circumstantial evidence could manifest as a surplus of well-executed correlational research, rather than relying solely on isolated causation research. However, as previously mentioned in this article, the current expert consensus regarding the correlational research on the causal link between social media and its negative effects on mental health is still too problematic with some academic experts who say it is, and other academic experts who say it is not. We believe, based on all the evidence we have read from both sides of the academic argument – it really comes down to a balanced use of technology specific to one’s mental health.
As professor and Psychologist Pete Etchella stated,
“Instead of asking does social media and technology cause mental health issues, perhaps a better question might be: why do some people prosper online while others get into real difficulty”
The White Hatter
