In 2024, Australia legally banned under 16s from using social media platforms, such as, Facebook, Instagram, Snap-chat, Tik-Tok, X and YouTube.[1] There is substantial debate as to whether the UK should do the same. Considering the impact of technology on the everyday lives of children in the UK, the government opened a consultation: “Growing up in the Online World”.[2] A key concern is how social media platforms negatively impact young people’s mental health. However, the evidence for this is not clear cut. To explore this in detail, we will look at the evidence, including some of the most cited, peer reviewed systematic reviews. Firstly, we explore the positive impact of SM. Then we look at the potential negative impact: anxiety and depression, body image, self-harm and suicidal thoughts and behaviours. We explore different types of engagement: the rise of short-form videos, active or passive usage, and whether usage differs according to gender or sociocultural background. Finally, we explore the recommendations made by researchers and consider these in a wider political and commercial context.
Benefits of Social Media Usage.
It seems there is less research into how SM can benefit wellbeing, compared to its negative impact on wellbeing. The social connection SM provides is particularly associated with improved wellbeing. Active use of SM (e.g. posting and messaging) was associated with increased online social support, general wellbeing, and positive mood, though it also increased anxiety symptoms.[3] Older adults’ wellbeing specifically benefits from SM, though there are fewer studies looking at this. 3 Compared to adolescents, older adults use SM differently, potentially explaining these distinctions. They prioritise direct, emotionally meaningful communication with a small, select network of family and friends.[4][5][6] This enables older adults to maintain social connections, reducing loneliness and depression.[7] However, this review relied on participants reporting their own SM usage and mental health, which could be susceptible to inaccuracy or bias. The majority of studies are cross-sectional, assessing usage at one moment in time, they therefore cannot establish whether SM causes reduced loneliness or depression.
SM is also evidenced to positively impact the mental health of LGBTQ adolescents, e.g. reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression.[8] SM provides social support and a space to safely express their LGBTQ identities, reducing symptoms of mental health difficulties.8 However, SM can also negatively affect LGBTQ adolescents’ mental wellbeing, particularly when they become dependent on it. 8 Again, this review had limitations, specifically that studies used many different measures for mental health conditions, some using LGBTQ specific tools, others using more general measures.
Negative impact of social media: anxiety & depression
A frequently cited review on SM and mental health looked at problematic SM usage, defined as when “excessive time and energy devoted to SM…[leads] to impairment and addiction-like symptoms”.[9] It found an association between problematic SM use and higher rates of symptoms of depression and anxiety among youth.[10] Whereas most studies measure time spent on SM, this research looks at compulsive usage, adopting a model designed for substance use. This study didn’t look for particular mechanisms explaining this relationship, but it could be because adolescents are at a vulnerable period developmentally. However, this review has several limitations. Firstly, we must highlight that this study concludes an association between SM and symptoms of depression and anxiety, not that SM causes these symptoms. The majority of studies measure SM usage and symptoms at one point in time, rather than whether symptoms started before or after the study. The studies measure symptoms of a specific condition using “self-reported” measures, susceptible to bias and inaccuracies. Many of the studies refer to SM as a single, overarching entity, rather than differentiating between, e.g. specific platforms used and content viewed. We therefore cannot separate the precise SM engagement harming or benefitting wellbeing.
Lastly, considering the measures these studies use, 4 out of 18 studies use the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale,[11] a scale often used to assess problematic SM use. This scale is designed around an addiction model originally developed for substance addiction, e.g. alcohol or drugs. Critics have challenged whether this model is valid for assessing problematic SM usage, particularly as it encourages over-diagnosis, unnecessarily transforming everyday, social or personal experiences into medical ones.[12] To measure symptoms of depression, 3 of the studies use the CES-D scale,[13] a measure developed in 1977. Understanding of depression and its diagnostic criteria (the DSM) has changed significantly since then.[14] Given these limitations in the way the research was conducted, more robust research appears to be needed here.
Body Image
A review concluded that higher SM usage is associated with increased concerns around body image and symptoms of eating disorders.[15] A key mechanism was “social comparison”: comparing ourselves to others on SM. However, again, this review relies on cross-sectional studies and self-reported measures. Considering measures used, 24 out of 85 studies rely on the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale.[16] This scale was developed in 1991, before SM became established. It was designed for social comparison in social events or situations, rather than specifically for online, image based comparison.[17] 14 out of the 85 studies simply use “items ad hoc”, e.g. one study created questions based on literature, rather than relying on validated, tested measures.[18] To measure body image, 19 studies relied on different versions of the Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire Scale. 7 studies used SATAQ-3 which focuses on appearance concerns communicated through traditional media e.g. television and magazines, not SM specifically[19]. It also fails to account for concerns from family and peers, whose influence is essential to body image theory.[20] As with anxiety and depression, the methodological limitations suggest that more robust research is needed.
Self-harm thoughts and behaviours
Nesi et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between SM usage and a range of self-harm thoughts and behaviours.[21] Specific SM uses included cyberbullying, viewing or creating content showing self-harm thoughts and behaviour, and problematic use of SM.[22][23] Outcomes identified included thoughts, plans or attempts to end one’s life and self-harm. Results found that experiencing higher levels of cyber-bullying was associated with increased chances of experiencing self-harming thoughts and behaviours, particularly among adolescents. Similarly, individuals viewing or creating self-harm content are more likely to engage with self-harm thoughts or behaviours, though it could be vice versa: individuals self-harming may seek and create this content. It’s important to highlight that problematic usage, not frequency of SM use, was related to self-harm thoughts and behaviours. Therefore, the specific experience: the content used and the pattern of its use, not social media itself that is detrimental. This review has some important limitations. Constructs like “problematic SM usage” are defined and measured very differently across studies. 21 Some studies created their own measures, e.g. Kowalski et al. (2020)[24]. Eleven studies used different versions of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) to measure cyber-bullying. The 2015 version of this scale includes bullying by email, chat-rooms, instant messaging, websites or texting.[25] It therefore doesn’t consider different SM platforms, video based SM, or the different types of usage and content exposure. The studies use a variety of different measures of self-harm thoughts and behaviours, for example, eleven studies used different versions of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Four questions from the YRBSS measure these concepts, e.g. “During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?”. Requiring a binary “yes” or “no” response, this appears a reductive approach to measuring such concepts, giving no insight as to causes, frequency, or severity.
Once again, methodological limitations are a concern. At the same time (and this may also apply to body image and anxiety and depression) social media provides more opportunities to both share and receive material relating to self-harm than existed in the pre-digital age. While problematic usage rather than time spent on social media may be the main risk factor, the very existence of social media arguably increases risk by increasing opportunities for problematic usage.
Short-form videos
Recently, short-form videos (SFVs) have begun to dominate and transform engagement on social media platforms, especially Tik Tok. Tik Tok’s content recommendations are informed by algorithms, so they suit personal preferences and engagement style, facilitating endless scrolling.[26][27] Research has found that increased engagement with short-form video is associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and increased stress.[28][29] Some studies suggest repeated exposure could be associated with changes in the reward pathways of the brain, leaving users less sensitive to the effects of everyday enjoyments, increasing vulnerability to anxiety and depression.[30][31] Alternative explanations include “social contagion”: repeatedly viewing mental health related content increases your awareness of such symptoms in yourself, comparing yourself to others, and reading regular emotional responses as signs of a mental health difficulty.29 Interestingly, SFVs impact our concentration and inhibitory control, possibly because their fast past, stimulating nature desensitises our brains to slower paced tasks, requiring more effort. 29
However, research into SFV engagement and mental health has some significant limitations. The two most cited, peer reviewed systematic reviews are based predominantly on Asian populations. This is important, especially as research emphasises the importance of considering cultural and educational context when studying smartphone use.28 Both reviews rely solely on cross-sectional studies, thus we cannot conclude whether increased short-form video usage causes mental health difficulties or vice versa. The studies rely on self-reported measures of SFV use, in the absence of validated, objective or standard measures.
Once again methodological limitations in the research are an issue. At the same time, in the absence of research suggesting mental health benefits from short form videos and suggested evidence of potential harm, this looks to be an area worth researching further in a UK or West European context, using longitudinal or cohort studies and validated measures.
Active vs passive usage.
Studies have explored how the type of engagement with SM, active or passive, impacts mental health. Active engagement is interacting with users by both posting and communicating; whereas passive use is consuming (scrolling or viewing) but not interacting directly with the content.[32] Active use is suggested to provide and access support from others, positively impacting wellbeing.[33][34] Passive usage is suggested to have negative effects because users compare themselves to others, estimating their own self-worth, which negatively affects their wellbeing.[35] However, a recent review challenged this simplistic conclusion.[36] This review found that actively using SM was related to increased online social support and improved overall wellbeing, but also to higher levels of anxiety. Passive use in general SM (e.g. newsfeeds) is associated with worse mental health outcomes, but with greater perceived online social support. Like other studies, this review found that, compared to older adults, teenagers and young adults are more vulnerable to the negative effects of SM, particularly with passive usage. To summarise: it’s not as simplistic as scrolling is negative and posting is positive. Instead, researchers need to explore who is using SM, what for, in what context (e.g. groups, communities), the content specifically and users’ stage of life.
Gender and Cultural differences
Research shows contrasting results as to whether female and male mental health is impacted differently by SM. Some reviews concluded that the association between SM and mental health was similar for men and women.10 One study found the association between problematic social media use and anxiety was stronger in women compared to men.[37] Potential explanations include women are more likely to spend more time on SM, experience anxiety and cyberbullying. Other reasons for the difference in results could be the varied definitions and measurement of SM usage, or the lack of studies available for an effect to be reliably identified. 37
To understand the association between cultural values, SM usage, and mental health, one study looked at teenagers from Turkey, England and Ireland.[38] Turkey was chosen to represent more collectivist cultural values (prioritising family, communities, groups), and England and Ireland represented individualist cultures (prioritising personal goals, independence). The most at-risk group were teenagers with individualist values, spending 4+ hours a day on SM. Potential explanations included the increased pressure to present an idealized version of themselves online and relying on SM for validation. The study therefore concluded that adolescents' individual values, rather than their country of origin, influences how SM will impact their mental health. However, it’s important to note that measures were self-reported, looking at time spent on SM, rather than content accessed. It was cross-sectional, using small samples from England and Ireland.
The evidence base for sociocultural differences in the relationship between depression in adolescence has significant limitations. A review exploring this looked at the samples of 34 studies, finding 70% recruited populations from the Global North (the UK, US, Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand) rather than the Global South (low and middle-income countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean).[39] Interestingly, only Global North populations showed increased SM usage was associated with higher rates of depression, not Global South populations. This highlights that much of our evidence about the association between SM and mental health in adolescents is based on Global North populations. Increasing sample diversity is essential to gather a more nuanced understanding.
The evidence currently available here clearly has limitations. At the same time the differences reported suggest that social media risks are greater for those in the individualistic cultures of the Global North than in the more collectivist cultures of Turkey and the Global South. There is a potential logic to this e.g. more need to rely on social media validation in individualistic societies and less need in more collectivist cultures, where other sources of validation may have a potentially moderating or protective effect. This is an interesting hypothesis that is worth researching further.
Conclusions
This review of published evidence suggests that there is not yet a sufficiently robust body of evidence to conclusively demonstrate that social media is harmful to mental health, without significant caveats as to who might be adversely affected, in what circumstances. This is mainly due to limitations in the research methodologies employed. However, this doesn’t mean social media is blameless. It means more robust research is needed. This is particularly the case given anecdotal evidence of harm for some individuals and the fact that social media, by its very nature, has expanded the range of material (both potentially beneficial and potentially harmful) which can be quickly and easily communicated to large numbers of young people.
Recommendations
Research suggests that a blanket ban or age restriction on social media for young people is not, in itself, necessarily the way forward. To start with, such measures ignore the benefits that adaptive engagement with social media can bring, including social connection and self-expression.[40] Whilst adolescents will most likely find ways around the ban, there is also a concern that the restrictions could push them to poorly regulated platforms, with exposure to equally (if not more) harmful content.[41] Equally, such measures mean young people will not learn the skills to navigate social media safely.41 Researchers refer to alcohol prevention initiatives as examples of similar schemes which failed to bring about sustained changes in behaviour. 41
Instead researchers call for a broader approach involving different stakeholders. Recommendations include making social media companies responsible for enabling the sharing of harmful content, for example, introducing penalties.40 Clear definitions of what constitutes “harmful” content are required, ensuring it is identified consistently and by an independent body.40 Social media companies should be transparent about their advertising: who funds the adverts, their target audience, their cost.40 Equally, transparency around their algorithms is required, specifically why specific content is promoted to users. They should disclose how harmful content is handled, and have dedicated systems and staff to identify such content.40 Social media companies should collect the minimum personal data needed and give users more control over personalisation of their account e.g. the content of their feeds.40 Researchers recognise that some age verification is required, which is where difficulties lie, as social media companies will have to gather and retain more personal data, increasing risks for young people. Collaboration with stakeholders is essential, with researchers calling for young people to be involved in the design and introduction of adolescent targeted schemes. 41 Working alongside researchers will also have benefits, for example, providing data to enable research into social media engagement and its effects.40 Recommendations also include upskilling parents to maintain open conversation with their adolescent around social media usage, and to implement limits around technology and screen time. 41 Lastly, there is an important role proposed for schools to continue promoting digital literacy and safety as part of its curriculum. 41
The Political and Commercial Context
The researchers cited above all raise potentially valid points. However, it is also worth considering how feasible these are, given the wider political and commercial context.
Making social media companies responsible for enabling the sharing of harmful content, for example by introducing penalties, is reasonable in theory. In practice, a range of social media companies have avoided or delayed penalties by lodging appeals, claiming that national governments have no jurisdiction over US companies, or simply refusing to pay, as with 4chan in the UK.[42]
Similarly, recommendations regarding transparency around advertising and around algorithms are fine in theory – but without effective sanctions there is little incentive for social media companies to comply.
Following the election of President Trump, attempts to regulate American social media companies and require them to take responsibility for their actions potentially brings the UK into conflict with the US and to the risk of economic sanctions. That is because the current US government frames social media (and AI) as an issue of free speech, with knock on effects for US citizens.[43] There is also the practical point that social media tends to evolve more rapidly than government legislation, meaning that governments usually end up playing catch-up.
Social media companies have thusfar shown limited evidence of providing inbuilt online safety for young people from the start, of accepting responsibility for material posted, or of transparency regarding algorithms. Indeed, following the election of President Trump, some appear to be moving in the opposite direction. For instance, Meta has stopped using independent fact checkers on Facebook and Instagram. These have been replaced by X-style ‘community notes; with commenting on the accuracy of posts left to users.[44]
However, relying on action by parents and schools (action proposed by some researchers) takes the focus and responsibility away from social media companies themselves. It is therefore worth considering what might motivate social media companies to make the changes needed.
Profit is the main driver for social media companies and young people are currently a lucrative market. Advertising targeted at young people on six social media platforms was estimated to generate almost $11billion in the US in 2022.[45] It is reasonable to assume a pro rata income in the UK i.e. tens of millions of pounds from advertising aimed at young people.
There is therefore an argument that however blunt and flawed a social media ban for young people would be, it is one measure that directly impacts social media company profits and is probably therefore the most powerful single lever open to national governments. It would not be a panacea and would require the UK to find more effective ways of policing a ban than Australia has found so far. However, it would hit social media company profits and might therefore be one of the few ways of pressuring them to begin to design in online safety for young people from the start. This could be presented as a pre-condition for lifting any ban introduced on social media use by young people i.e. it would be a hopefully short term means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Emily Wyke July 2026
References
[1] Champion, K.E., Birrell, L., Smout, S., Teesson, M. and Slade, T. (2025), Debate: Social
media in children and young people – time for a ban? Beyond the ban – empowering parents
and schools to keep adolescents safe on social media. Child Adolescent Mental Health, 30, 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.70032
[2] Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2026). Growing up in the online world: a national consultation. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation
[3] Godard, R., Holtzman, S. (2024). Are active and passive social media use related to mental health, wellbeing, and social support outcomes? A meta-analysis of 141 studies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(1), zmad055.
[4] Rylands, D., Van Belle, J. P. (2017). The Impact of Facebook on the Quality of Life of Senior Citizens in Cape Town. In J. Choudrie, M. Islam, F. Wahid, J. Bass, J. Priyatma, (Eds.) Information and Communication Technologies for Development. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 504. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59111-7_60
[5] Sims, T., Reed, A. E., & Carr, D. C. (2017). Information and communication technology use is related to higher wellbeing among the oldest-old. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72, 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw130
[6] Kim, C., & Shen, C. (2020). Connecting activities on social network sites and life satisfaction: A comparison of older and younger users. Computers in Human Behavior, 105(11–12):106222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106222
[7] Lei, X., Matovic, D., Leung, W.-Y., et al. (2024). The relationship between social media use and psychosocial outcomes in older adults: A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics.36(9), 714–746. doi:10.1017/S1041610223004519
[8] Berger, M. N., Taba, M., Marino, J. L. et al. (2022). Social Media Use and Health and Well-being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(9), e38449. https://doi.org/10.2196/38449
[9] Problematic Social Media Use. (2024). Encyclopedia of Adolescence (Second Edition), 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/problematic-social-media-use
[10] Shannon, H., Bush, K., Villeneuve, P. J. et al. (2022). Problematic Social Media Use in Adolescents and Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JMIR Mental Health, 9(4), e33450. https://doi.org/10.2196/33450
[11] Andreassen C. S., Billieux J., Griffiths M. D. et al. (2016). The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychological Addictive Behaviors, 30(2), 252–262. doi: 10.1037/adb0000160.
[12] Ciudad-Fernández, V., Fournier, L., Escrivá-Martínez, T. et al. (2025). Salience and tolerance are not indicators of problematic social media use: Evidence from the Social Media Disorder Scale and the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 14(3), 1380–1393. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2025.00073
[13] Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
[14] Henry, S. K., Grant, M. M., Cropsey, K. L. (2018). Determining the optimal clinical cutoff on the CES-D for depression in a community corrections sample, Journal of Affective Disorders, 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.071.
[15] Bonfanti, R. C., Melchiorim, F., Teti, A. (2025). The association between social comparison in social media, body image concerns and eating disorder symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Body Image, 52, 101841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101841.
[16] Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L, & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1991). The Physical Appearance Comparison Scale, Psychology Faculty Publications. 2116.
[17] Schaefer, L. M., & Thompson, J. K. (2018). The development and validation of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-3 (PACS-3). Psychological Assessment, 30(10), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000576
[18] van Oosten, J., Vandenbosch, L., Peter, J. (2023). Predicting the use of visually oriented social media: The role of psychological well-being, body image concerns and sought appearance gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior, 144, 107730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107730.
[19] Uchôa, F., Uchôa, N., Daniele, T. et al. (2019). Influence of the mass media and body dissatisfaction on the risk in adolescents of developing eating disorders, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 1508. doi:10.3390/ijerph16091508
[20] Schaefer, L., Burke, N., Thompson, J. et al. (2014). Development and Validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 (SATAQ-4). Psychological Assessment, 27, doi:10.1037/a0037917
[21] Nesi, J., Burke, T. A., Bettis, A. H. et al. (2021). Social media use and self-injurious thoughts and behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 87, 102038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102038
[22] Lee, E., Ho, S., Lwin, M. (2017). Explicating problematic social network sites use: A review of concepts, theoretical frameworks, and future directions for communication theorizing. New Media & Society, 19(2), 308–326. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/14614448166718.
[23] Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020). A review of theories and models applied in studies of social media addiction and implications for future research. Addictive Behaviors, 106699.
[24] Kowalski, R. M., Dillon, E., Macbeth, J. et al. (2020). Racial differences in cyberbullying from the perspective of victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(5), 644.
[25] US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/files/2015/pdf/2015_hs_questionnaire.pdf
[26] Montag, C., Yang, H., & Elhai, J. D. (2021). On the psychology of TikTok use: A first glimpse from empirical findings. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 641673. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.641673
[27] Yang, Y., Liu, R. D., Ding, Y. et al. (2024). Time distortion for short-form video users. Computers in Human Behavior, 151, 108009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108009
[28] Tang, D., Zhang, X., Gou, P. (2026). Association Between Short-Form Video Use and Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28, e82503 doi:10.2196/82503
[29] Nguyen, L., Walters, J., Paul, S. et al. (2025). Feeds, feelings, and focus: A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the cognitive and mental health correlates of short-form video use. Psychological Bulletin, 151(9), pp.1125–1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000498
[30] Chen, K., He, Q., Pan, Y. et al. (2022). Short video viewing, and not sedentary time, is associated with overweightness/ obesity among Chinese women. Nutrients, 14(6), 1309. https:// doi.org/10.3390/nu14061309
[31] Su, C., Zhou, H., Gong, L., Teng, B., Geng, F., & Hu, Y. (2021). Viewing personalized video clips recommended by TikTok activates default mode network and ventral tegmental area. NeuroImage, 237, 118136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118136
[32] Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2020). Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Communication Research, 47(5), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502156175
[33] Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., & Layton, J.B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
[34] Inagaki, T.K., & Orehek, E. (2017). On the benefits of giving social support: When, why, and how support providers gain by caring for others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416686212
[35] Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). Exploring the relationships between different types of Facebook use, perceived online social support, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Social Science Computer Review, 34(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314567449
[36] Godard, R., Holtzman, S. (2024). Are active and passive social media use related to mental health, wellbeing, and social support outcomes? A meta-analysis of 141 studies, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29, 1, zmad055
[37] Ahmed, O., Walsh, E. I., Dawel, A. et al. (2024). Social media use, mental health and sleep: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Journal of affective disorders, 367, 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.193
[38] Gordesli, B. K., Leamy, M., Murrells, T., & Grealish, A. (2024). Moderating effect of cultural differences on the association between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents: A cross-cultural comparison study. PloS one, 19(12), e0316365. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316365
[39] Ghai, S., Fassi, L., Awadh, F., & Orben, A. (2023). Lack of Sample Diversity in Research on Adolescent Depression and Social Media Use: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 11(5), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221114859
[40] Chhabra, J., Pilkington, V., Benakovic, R. et al. (2025). Social Media and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review of Platform and Policy Recommendations. Journal of Medical Internet research, 27, e72061. https://doi.org/10.2196/72061
[41] Champion, K. E., Birrell, L., Smout, S., Teesson, M., Slade, T. (2025), Debate: Social media in children and young people – time for a ban? Beyond the ban – empowering parents and schools to keep adolescents safe on social media. Child Adolescent Mental Health, 30: 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.70032
[42] Vallance, C. (2025, August 22). 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells. BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq68j5g2nr1o
[43] Jordan, J., Fitzgerald, S., Kiley, K. (2025, August 18). Heavy-hitting Congressmen tell us they are ‘shocked’ at EU speech censorship. House Committee on the Judiciary.
[44] McMahon, L., Kleinman, Z., Subramanian, C. (2025, January 7). Facebook and Instagram get rid of fact checkers. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly74mpy8klo
[45] Raffoul, A., Ward, Z. J., Santoso, M., (2023). Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS ONE, 18(12): e0295337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295337