CAVEAT – This is a long read but an important one that every parent and caregiver should read
In today’s onlife world, parents and caregivers face conflicting narratives about the role of technology, cellphones, and social media in their children’s lives. (1)(2) Critics understandably cite alarming examples – youth lost to suicide due to sextortion, online grooming cases of youth through social media, or youth accessing pornography on school-issued computers as evidence of the urgent need to restrict or ban children’s access to these tools and platforms. The underlying argument primarily relies on emotionally charged narratives designed to advocate for sweeping preemptive actions, such as banning technology use until a certain age or prohibiting the use of technology in schools. However, history and a careful analysis of the good evidence-based research urge caution in adopting emotional reactionary policies that could do more harm than good.
Emotional Arguments vs. Evidence-Based Research
While the examples cited above are undeniably distressing and heart-wrenching, policies affecting millions of children should not be based solely on extreme cases or isolated anecdotes. These stories, though tragic, do not represent the full spectrum of youth experiences with technology. Reactionary measures risk overcorrecting in ways that could cause more harm than good. History offers a powerful reminder of this lesson, especially when it comes our psychological, physical, and even social wellbeing – here are two examples to support this statement:
Lesson #1: Well-Intentioned Interventions Can Harm
Dr. Ben Goldacre, shared that when a traumatic brain injury occurs, it can lead to brain swelling and increased intracranial pressure, which can be fatal. For years, corticosteroids were administered to reduce the swelling, as it seemed like the logical course of action. However, before the 2000s, there was no scientific evidence to support this practice, yet it was still used as a primary treatment because it made sense. In a groundbreaking 2005 study, researchers challenged the belief of this medical intervention. (3) The results were shocking – patients who received the steroids were more likely to die. The very treatment intended to save lives was actually causing more harm than good.
Lesson #2: Overreaction Leads to Unintended Consequences
The 1999 Columbine school shooting led to the understandable widespread adoption of zero-tolerance policies regarding weapons in schools, with many schools enforcing strict, no-exceptions rules. However, this approach has led to unintended consequences. For example, in 2009, a 6-year-old student, who was a new Boy Scout, was suspended for 45 days for bringing a Boy Scout camping utensil, which combined a knife, fork, spoon, and bottle opener to school for lunch. (4) Today, many schools are revising these policies to incorporate common sense and discretion, recognizing that blanket zero-tolerance approaches can lead to unfair outcomes. The goal is to strike a balance between maintaining safety and using sound judgment when dealing with unintentional infractions.
We contend that hastily imposing restrictions on technology without a thorough and nuanced understanding of its multifaceted impact on the emotional, psychological, physical, and social well-being of all children could result in significant unintended consequences and even harm. Such an approach risks overlooking the diverse ways technology can benefit youth, particularly those who rely on it for support, education, and connection. By acting without a comprehensive assessment, we may inadvertently create barriers to opportunities for growth, learning, and community-building, while failing to address the root causes of potential harms.
Emotion-driven arguments, such as tragic cases of youth suicide linked to sextortion, online grooming through social media, and students accessing pornography on school-issued devices, often resonate more strongly with parents and caregivers than evidence-based reasoning against age-gating or bans. These emotionally-driven examples are powerful because they tap into parent’s deep-seated and understandable protective instincts for their children, which is why they are frequently employed by advocates who want to delay, restrict, and ban the use of technology and the internet. As psychologist Dr Odger’s, a parent and a highly regarded researcher who studies teen’s and their use of technology has stated, “Children are being used as the tip of the spear to slay social media companies” (5) Pride plays a key role in this dynamic because it is intrinsically tied to a parent or caregiver’s identity, values, and sense of responsibility. Here’s why pride amplifies the effectiveness of emotional appeals:
- Parents and caregivers naturally take pride in their role as caregivers and protectors. Emotional arguments, such as stories of children being harmed or saved, trigger a visceral reaction that aligns with their desire to fulfill this role. These stories often bypass logical analysis and speak directly to a parent or caregiver’s pride in keeping their child safe and thriving.
- Evidence-based arguments can sometimes challenge a parent or caregiver’s choices or imply they are not doing enough, unintentionally provoking defensiveness. Emotional appeals, on the other hand, often validate their identity as good, loving parents or caregivers, reinforcing their sense of pride and encouraging action without resistance.
- Pride in their children’s well-being can make parents and caregivers prioritize emotional messages because they feel urgent and personal. Unlike evidence, which requires processing and interpretation, emotions create a sense of immediate connection and need for action, appealing to their instinctual pride-driven response.
- Pride often ties to shared cultural, community, or even religious values, such as raising responsible, happy, and successful children. Emotional arguments leverage these shared values, making parents and caregivers feel part of a collective effort, while evidence-based arguments might feel cold, detached, or even threaten these shared experiences or beliefs.
When it comes to youth mental health, it is influenced by a complex web of confounding factors – family dynamics, educational pressures, socioeconomic conditions, and global events to name a few. (6) Technology is one piece of this puzzle, but blaming it as the sole cause risks oversimplification – something know as a “Nirvana Fallacy”. (7)
In the case of cellphones or social media, the age gate of 16 is the Nirvana Fallacy – the belief that by banning it or not allowing access will solve the youth mental health crisis, or stop the deaths associated with its use. This is particularly interesting to us, as the total number of youth deaths or serious injuries associated with walking to school, swimming, playing sports, or riding as a passenger in a car significantly exceeds those linked to technology or social media use (8) – so why not age-gate or ban these activities as well? Clearly, this approach is unrealistic and even laughable. Instead, we educate our kids about the dangers and equip them with the skills to stay safer – teaching them how to cross streets safely to avoid being hit by a vehicle, how to swim to reduce the risk of drowning, the importance of wearing protective gear while playing sports to prevent injuries, and the necessity of seat belts to minimize harm in a car. So why not apply the same logic to technology and social media, helping our kids navigate these spaces more safely?
We often forget or don’t recognize that social media and the internet can also provide tangible benefits to youth, why? – because the positives don’t get the same headlines in the media as the negatives. Here are some of the positives that we have seen:
- Access to online learning tools and resources. (9)
- Social connection is particularly vital for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ youth, First Nation/Aboriginal youth, or those youth with disabilities who often find support and community online (10)(11). Notably, we have yet to hear from advocates of the delay, restrict, and ban the use of technology and the internet approach about an effective and viable alternative for fostering communication and connection for these marginalized populations.
- Online platforms allow youth to explore their passions, share their talents, and even generate income. (12)
Rather than implementing bans or severe restrictions that truly only target youth, we should empower parents, caregivers, educators, youth, and teens to use technology responsibly combined with legislation that targets social media and tech vendors – a more balanced approach in our opinion. Teaching digital literacy, critical thinking, and safe online habits enables youth and teens to better navigate online spaces without losing access to their benefits, especially when parents and caregivers are not around.
The examples of sextortion, grooming, and inappropriate content are often not solely a result of technology, but can also reflect failures in moderation, education, and oversight. Blaming platforms exclusively diverts attention from shared responsibilities such as:
- Parental or Caregiver Guidance & Supervision – Educating children about online risks, setting boundaries, and choosing the right tech at the right time. (13)
- Legislative Action – Strengthening online safety standards and enforcement that targets social media and technology companies. (14)
- Platform Accountability – Improving content moderation and reporting mechanisms.
Some argue that the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard we advocate for (15) in legislation and policy development should be flipped and replaced with a “guilty until proven innocent” standard targeted at technology and social media companies and their products. However, we contend that this approach is deeply problematic. It conflicts with principles of fairness, evidence-based decision-making, and the developmental needs of young people. Below, we outline eight key issues with adopting this mindset:
#1. It Undermines Trust in Youth – Assuming technology is harmful until proven otherwise sends a message to young people that they cannot be trusted to use it responsibly. This can damage the relationship between youth and their parents or educators, fostering resentment and rebellion rather than cooperation and guidance.
#2. It Discourages Critical Thinking – A “guilty until proven innocent” mindset often leads to blanket restrictions that bypass the opportunity to teach critical thinking and responsible decision-making. Youth miss out on the chance to learn how to navigate digital spaces safely and thoughtfully because the emphasis is placed on avoidance rather than education.
#3. It Reinforces Fear-Based Decision-Making – This approach relies on fear rather than facts. It perpetuates the idea that technology is inherently bad, which can lead to reactionary policies and parenting strategies that are not grounded in evidence. This fear-driven narrative often overlooks the benefits and opportunities technology provides, such as fostering creativity, learning, and social connection.
#4. It Fails to Address Root Causes – Blaming technology without evidence diverts attention from the real underlying issues, such as inadequate education about online safety, the need for digital literacy programs, or societal factors contributing to harmful online behaviour. This approach focuses on symptoms rather than solutions.
#5. It Ignores the Benefits of Technology – By defaulting to a negative stance, the many positive aspects of technology, such as its role in education, communication, and personal growth are undervalued or ignored. This creates an unbalanced view that does not reflect the nuanced ways youth engage with technology.
#6. It Contradicts Principles of Fairness – In both legal and ethical frameworks, the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of fairness. Applying the opposite standard to technology creates an environment where unproven assumptions dictate decisions, which can lead to unfair and overly restrictive rules.
#7. It Creates a Stifling Environment – Over-policing or prematurely banning technology due to risks can stifle innovation and exploration. Youth need space to experiment and learn through experience, including how to manage challenges and risks online.
#8. It Inhibits Preparation for the Digital Future – Technology is a fundamental part of modern life in today’s onlife world. If youth are not given the chance to engage with it meaningfully and responsibly, they may be ill-prepared for the digital demands of their future personal and professional lives.
Addressing the harms of social media requires thoughtful, evidence-based strategies that recognize both risks and benefits. Emotional arguments, while compelling, should not replace critical analysis and comprehensive research that is evidence-based. By prioritizing digital literacy, promoting responsible use, and fostering a balanced understanding of technology, parents can equip their children to thrive in the digital age rather than shield them from it.
The debate surrounding technology use and its impact on youth mental health has sparked intense discussion from both sides of the debate. While some advocate for restrictive measures, others, such as ourselves here at the White Hatter, propose a more balanced approach. It is crucial to recognize that technology is not the sole cause of mental health issues in youth. Instead, it is one piece of a complex puzzle that includes other confounding factors like family dynamics, educational pressures, and socioeconomic conditions.
Emotional arguments, though compelling, should not dictate policy decisions. Rather, evidence-based research and nuanced understanding should guide our approach. This includes acknowledging the benefits of technology, such as access to online learning tools, social connection, and platforms for self-expression.
A balanced strategy involves:
- Digital literacy – Educating youth and parents about online safety and responsible technology use.
- Legislative action – Strengthening online safety standards and enforcement targeting social media and technology companies rather than youth and teens.
- Platform accountability – Improving content moderation and reporting mechanisms.
- Parental guidance and overwatch – Encouraging open communication and setting boundaries. (16)
By adopting an evidence-based balanced approach, we can empower youth to navigate the onlife world in a safer and more responsible way, while also promoting their mental health and well-being.
History shows that hasty emotional decisions that are not evidence-based can often lead to regret and even harm. (17) Let’s ensure that our responses to technology and youth mental health are guided by good evidence based wisdom and not just emotions and fear spawned by what Dr Etchells calls “Zombie Statistics”! (2)
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
3/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7043302/
4/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cub-scout-utensil-suspension-unfair/
10/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9536523/
11/ https://peertopeer.kidshelpphone.ca/
17/ https://newsletter.pessimistsarchive.org/archive?sort=new
