speech on social media is good or bad

Speech On Social Media- Advantages, Disadvantages and Importance

Table of Contents

Speech On Social Media: In a world where clicks, likes, and shares have become the currency of our social interactions, there’s no denying the pervasive influence of social media. It’s a digital realm that has seamlessly woven itself into the fabric of our lives, altering how we connect, communicate, and consume information. From connecting with long-lost friends to voicing our opinions on global issues, social media has transformed the way we navigate our interconnected world. But what lies beneath the surface of those enticing timelines and trending hashtags?

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Students often encounter the task of giving speeches on various topics, and social media is a fascinating subject for exploration. In this article, we will embark on a journey to explore the captivating and complex realm of social media. We have provided a few sample speech topics on social media, highlighting its advantages, disadvantages, and the profound impact it has on our lives.

Long and Short Speeches on Social Media in English

Speech on advantages and disadvantages of social media for students – sample 1.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, I stand before you to discuss a topic that has become an integral part of our lives – social media. It’s hard to imagine a world without platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. Social media has transformed the way we connect, communicate, and share information. But, like every coin has two sides, social media has its advantages and disadvantages.

Let’s start with the positive aspects. Here are the pros of social media. Social media bridges geographical gaps, allowing us to connect with friends and family worldwide. It’s a powerful tool for sharing our thoughts, experiences, and achievements. Students benefit from it as a valuable resource for learning and research. Moreover, it’s a platform for raising social awareness, promoting businesses, and even finding job opportunities.

However, we must also acknowledge the downsides. Excessive use of social media can lead to addiction and affect mental health. It’s a breeding ground for cyberbullying, misinformation, and privacy invasion. Moreover, the constant exposure to idealized images and lives can negatively impact self-esteem.

In conclusion, social media is a double-edged sword. It has revolutionized the way we communicate and share, offering numerous advantages. Yet, we must navigate it cautiously, being mindful of its pitfalls. Let’s use it responsibly and harness its potential for good.

Speech on Technology Speech on Internet Essay on Uses of Internet

Speech on Impact of Social Media – Sample 2

Good day, everyone,

The topic I’d like to address today is the impact of social media on our lives. There’s no denying that social media has become an inseparable part of our daily routine. From connecting with friends to keeping up with the latest trends, it’s all at our fingertips.

Let’s dive into the advantages of social media. Social media allows us to stay connected with friends and family, regardless of distance. It’s a treasure trove of information, news, and educational content. For students, it offers a platform to collaborate on projects and access a wealth of knowledge. Businesses utilize it for marketing and customer engagement.

However, there’s another side to the story. Social media can be addictive, leading to time wastage and reduced productivity. Privacy concerns are a pressing issue, with personal information often at risk. Cyberbullying and the spread of fake news are unfortunate consequences of its widespread use.

So, where do we stand? Social media is a tool, and its impact depends on how we use it. It can bring us closer or push us apart. It can educate or misinform. The choice is ours.

In conclusion, social media has its merits and demerits. It’s up to us to harness its advantages while being vigilant about its pitfalls. Let’s use it wisely, striking a balance between the virtual and real worlds.

Thank you for your attention.

Speech on Social Media Topic in English – Sample 3

I’m delighted to address you on a topic that has reshaped our world – social media. In today’s digital age, it’s nearly impossible to escape its influence. So, let’s explore the impact and significance of social media.

To begin with, social media has revolutionized communication. It connects people worldwide, making the world a smaller place. It’s a powerful tool for staying informed about current events and trends. For students, it’s a treasure trove of educational resources. Entrepreneurs and businesses leverage it for promotion and brand building.

Yet, there’s a flip side. The addictive nature of social media can lead to time wastage. Privacy concerns loom large, as our personal information is often shared and exploited. The spread of misinformation and cyberbullying are unfortunate consequences.

So, where do we go from here? It’s crucial to strike a balance. Use social media as a tool for enrichment, connection, and empowerment. But also, be mindful of its addictive nature and potential pitfalls. Let’s make informed choices in our digital journeys.

In conclusion, social media is a force that’s here to stay. It’s up to us to harness its advantages while being vigilant about its drawbacks. Let’s make our online presence a positive and enriching one.

Social media has become an integral part of our daily lives, revolutionizing the way we connect, communicate, and share information. From its myriad benefits to the nuanced drawbacks, understanding the multifaceted role of social platforms is crucial in today’s digital landscape.

Lets see the Advantages, Disadvantages and Importance of Online Networking

1. Global Connectivity and Networking Social media bridges geographical barriers, enabling individuals to connect globally. It facilitates networking opportunities, fostering professional relationships and personal connections.

2. Information Dissemination and Awareness Instantaneous sharing allows for rapid dissemination of information. Be it news, trends, or educational content, social media serves as a powerful tool for spreading awareness and initiating discussions on various topics.

3. Business Growth and Marketing Businesses leverage social platforms to expand their reach, engage with audiences, and market their products/services. Targeted ads and analytics help businesses create effective strategies.

4. Community Building and Support Social media brings people together around common interests, creating spaces for support, self-expression, advice, and finding similar-minded individuals.

Disadvantages

1. Privacy and Security Concerns Privacy breaches and data misuse remain significant concerns. Users often share sensitive information unknowingly, leading to potential security risks and exploitation by third parties.

2. Addiction and Mental Health Impact Excessive usage can lead to addiction and have adverse effects on mental health. Constant exposure to curated, often idealized content can fuel feelings of inadequacy and anxiety.

3. Spread of Misinformation False information can spread rapidly, impacting opinions and beliefs. Misleading content, rumors, and fake news pose a challenge in maintaining an informed society.

4. Online Harassment and Cyberbullying Social media platforms can be breeding grounds for cyberbullying and harassment. Anonymity and easy accessibility empower individuals to engage in harmful behaviors.

1. Communication Evolution Social media has transformed communication by providing instant connectivity across the globe. It has redefined how people interact, share ideas, and collaborate.

2. Information Accessibility It democratizes information, making knowledge accessible to diverse populations regardless of geographic or socioeconomic barriers.

3. Catalyst for Change It serves as a catalyst for societal change by amplifying voices, raising awareness about social issues, and mobilizing movements for positive causes.

4. Business Adaptation For businesses, social media is an indispensable tool, enabling them to adapt to changing consumer behaviors, innovate marketing strategies, and engage with their target audience effectively.

Also Read: Disadvantages of Using Social Media During Online classes

FAQ’s

Why is social media important speech.

A speech on the importance of social media can highlight its role in connecting people, facilitating communication, sharing information, and its impact on various aspects of our lives.

What is social media in easy words?

Social media is websites and applications that enable users to create and share content, connect with others, and participate in online communities by sharing thoughts, pictures, videos, and messages.

What is the importance of social media in students?

Social media offers students platforms for collaboration, learning, networking, and accessing information. It can aid in educational research, career opportunities, and building connections.

Why is social media important?

Social media is important as it helps in staying connected with friends and family, accessing news and information, promoting businesses, fostering communities, and providing a platform for self-expression.

Write a 1-minute speech on social media?

Social media has revolutionized the way we connect and communicate. It bridges distances, opens doors to new opportunities, and allows us to share our stories with the world. From keeping in touch with loved ones to exploring new interests, social media has become an integral part of our lives, shaping how we learn, work, and interact in today's digital age.

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

10 Positive and Negative Effects of Social Media on Society

Nowadays, social media is so popular among the young, children, and adults. Each of us uses social media to be updated, to entertain ourselves, to communicate with others, to explore new things, and to connect with the world. Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, etc. are examples of social media. Social media is a part of our lives today, and consciously or unconsciously, it is becoming our habit to continuously go through it and check the notifications.

What is social media?

Social media is a platform where we can communicate with a large number of people, make connections, and interact with them. It operates on the internet.A user usually creates an account on such a platform and allows interaction with the millions of other users available on it according to their preferences and choices. Apart from the interaction, it also allows users to share information, chat with other people, share their opinions, create content, and embrace their differences.

In today’s world, social media is an important part of young people’s lives, determining and shaping their perspectives.The youth typically adopt and pursue social media trends; for example, in dressing styles, the youth adopt dresses and styles that are promoted as trends by social media.

Social media not only allows people to share their opinions, but it also shapes the opinions of its users.Social media have an impact on their users as well as society as a whole, both positive and negative.

Here we will now discuss the negative and positive impacts of social media on society.

Positive impact of social media on   society.

• Builds connectivity and connection: Social media facilitates better communication as well as the development of stronger connections and connectivity around the world. One can talk to a person who lives thousands of miles away from him or her. One can also make connections in his or her respective field or area to promote his or her venture, business, or idea. LinkedIn is an example of social media where you can build connections from across the world and increase your connectivity. Hence, social media is not only connecting people within a society but also connecting people from different societies and cultures, allowing them to exchange their values and beliefs.
• People are empowered by social media because it educates them, makes them aware of them, and gives them a platform to raise their voices, showcase their talents, and promote their businesses. For instance, people on Instagram not only communicate with each other but are also establishing their small businesses and creating content on various things such as dressing style, make-up, fashion hacks, and educational content. Likewise, on YouTube, people do the same thing except chat and earn money through their talent, opinions, and content. Therefore, social media helps generate employment in society and educate its members.
• People are helped both economically and emotionally by social media : Economically, by providing customers to businesses and providing jobs to the unemployed. Emotionally, by demonstrating empathy and love to the people.The person who feels alone should communicate with people online and talk to them. Sometimes, when you post something on your social media account—a sad or happy post—people react accordingly. If you post something sad, people try to cheer you up or console you, and vice versa. Social media in society provides an equal opportunity to be social and interact, especially for those who find it difficult to communicate with others in person.
• Knowledge: on social media, people post massive amounts of content on a wide range of issues and topics. YouTube is a platform where you can find information in English, Hindi, or any other language you are comfortable with. From the fundamentals to the advanced, from simple to complex topics, one can learn for free on social media. There are many teachers, motivators, and religious gurus who provide knowledge in various fields and aspects.
• Provides new skills: Through social media, you can acquire and learn new skills. You can, for example, learn to knit on YouTube or do it yourself (DIY) on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. You can acquire as many skills as you want: cooking, knitting, floral design, rangoli making, python, ethical hacking, etc. Moreover, learning new skills helps one find work and empowers oneself.
• Source to news: social media is a source of news nowadays; people watch news more on YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook as compared to news channels and newspapers. People believe that news on social media is more trustworthy and presented in a more interesting format than traditional news channels.
• Sharing of ideas: social media allows the sharing of ideas beyond boundaries, nations, and states. Social media facilitates the exchange of ideas about one’s culture, religion, state, nationality, and environment.
• Raising funds: social media helps many people raise funds for noble causes. Through the help of social media, people start campaigns for donations for a particular case, and everyone can participate in these donations. For Example, Fundraising for blind orphan children
• Creates communities: Social media creates communities of people from various backgrounds who share common interests. People with the same interests connect more with each other. Examples include the science community, the arts community, and the poets’ community. The nature of a community depends on the interests of its members.
• Multiple sources of learning: social media is a hub of knowledge where you can learn anything and everything. The education is provided at no cost. There is not only educational or academic learning, but also other types of learning; you can learn how to improve your personality, improve your communication skills, be more confident, and develop your public speaking skills.

Negative impacts of social media on society

• Contributes to the digital divide: The “digital divide” refers to the gap between those who can access the internet and those who cannot because of illiteracy, poverty, and a lack of resources. Social media is contributing to this by setting trends and engaging more youth, and youth who cannot access or understand the trends, as well as adults, are falling behind.
• Increasing cybercrimes and cyberfrauds : An increase in the use of social media is leading to an increase in cybercrimes and frauds. Cyberbullying, harassment, and stalking are on the rise nowadays, and mostly teenage women are becoming victims of them. Cyber fraud is also on the rise because most people lack digital literacy and are unaware of things like when fraudsters create an account to impersonate someone you know and demand money from you for various reasons.The nature of the frauds varied and could cause confusion and restlessness in your minds.
• Negative information, news, and rumours spread quickly: As the elders say, negativity spreads faster than positivity; similarly, false news or negative news, rumours, and information spread quickly and cause chaos and instability in the social order.Because of the rapid transfer of information, false news or information spreads in no time, which furthers the happenings in society. For example, if you come across WhatsApp messages that claim prejudice or hatred against a particular community, they will spread with more intensity and rage. This false claim creates a false image among people regarding the thing, and the false information is spread. Sometimes, it leads to violent situations in society.
• Social media affects the mental health of individuals: The stalking, cybercrimes, frauds, and hate comments adversely affect people; problems of depression, anxiety, severe tension, and fear are emerging. Sometimes, the conditions get worse, leading to suicide as well. As Durkheim mentioned, suicide is a social fact; either more or less social involvement leads to suicide in an individual, and social media manifests and roots both. For instance, if a user posts her critical view on a sensitive topic, chances are high that she will feel instant backlash from those who are against her views. Another example is that victims of cyberfraud fear using social media. Because of social media, people get traumatised and spend years of their lives living in that trauma and fear.
• People are becoming more addicted to their phones as a result of being disconnected from social reality. People frequently ignore and neglect those around them; they are unaware of what is going on in society because they are constantly immersed in their virtual world, engaging with entertainment and people in their virtual world. People who lack social and communication skills use social media to escape and ignore people in the real world. For instance, we all know a person who has no friends in the real world but has a following of hundreds of thousands on their social media account.
• Effects on health: Social media has an impact not only on mental health, but also on physical health. The constant use of screens such as phones, laptops, and tablets directly impacts the eyes by weakening the eyesight. It also negatively impacts our creativity; it basically lessens our level of creativity. The constant use of social media also makes us lazy and less active, as we are constantly using our devices. People also suffer from insomnia, irritation, and the fear of missing out. As Parsons stated, when an individual is sick, it becomes a non-functional member of society, and sickness is socially sanctioned deviance. In our opinion, social media is also making functional members of society non-functional.
• Unverified information: While social media is undeniably a knowledge hub, not all knowledge and information on it is correct or verified. Due to the large amount of data present on social media, most of it is unverified, and the chances of receiving false information are high. For example, on Facebook and Instagram, you’ll frequently see a post with the words “more you cry, the stronger you become,” and above or below it, “psychological facts”. People consume this false information as fact. There are enormous posts like this. But, in reality, this is far from factual knowledge or information.
• Undermine people: social media do not support people; they often lack support, empathy, and rational behavior. The moment people post something sad or controversial, they start getting backlash, hate comments, and threats, because of which people suffer from anxiety, stress, and depression. People who are unable to follow trends feel isolated. People who are not on social media also feel alienated. People on social media also spread hatred and prejudices against others instead of supporting and appreciating them. People compare themselves to others on social media, which lowers their self-esteem and confidence.
• Make conscious decisions about yourself: People post pictures according to socially constructed beauty standards, in which they seem slim, have radiant skin, and have clear lips (by using filters). Other people who are overweight or slimmer, have acne or pimples on their skin, lack makeup skills, and become self-conscious about their bodies. Teens start to diet, go to the gym, and try to maintain the trending body. Adults also suffer from this. People become self-conscious, which leads to feelings of inadequacy about their bodies and appearance.
• Increased use of poor language: on social media, people use language that has poor grammar, speech, and spelling. LOL, WYD, etc. words are used while chatting with people on social media. The quality of language is deteriorating, and people are losing their culture.

Conclusion-

From the above discussion, we can conclude that despite the various uses of social media, there are many misuses and negative impacts of it on society as a whole as well as on individuals.

Also read: Why do people share everything online?

Yachika Yadav is a sociology post graduate student at Banasthali Vidyapith. She loves to capture moments in nature, apart from drawing and writing poetries. Field of research attracts her the most and in future she want to be a part of that. She is a good listener, learner. And tries to always help others.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Social Media and Mental Health: Benefits, Risks, and Opportunities for Research and Practice

John a. naslund.

a Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Ameya Bondre

b CareNX Innovations, Mumbai, India

John Torous

c Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA

Kelly A. Aschbrenner

d Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH

Social media platforms are popular venues for sharing personal experiences, seeking information, and offering peer-to-peer support among individuals living with mental illness. With significant shortfalls in the availability, quality, and reach of evidence-based mental health services across the United States and globally, social media platforms may afford new opportunities to bridge this gap. However, caution is warranted, as numerous studies highlight risks of social media use for mental health. In this commentary, we consider the role of social media as a potentially viable intervention platform for offering support to persons with mental disorders, promoting engagement and retention in care, and enhancing existing mental health services. Specifically, we summarize current research on the use of social media among mental health service users, and early efforts using social media for the delivery of evidence-based programs. We also review the risks, potential harms, and necessary safety precautions with using social media for mental health. To conclude, we explore opportunities using data science and machine learning, for example by leveraging social media for detecting mental disorders and developing predictive models aimed at characterizing the aetiology and progression of mental disorders. These various efforts using social media, as summarized in this commentary, hold promise for improving the lives of individuals living with mental disorders.

Introduction

Social media has become a prominent fixture in the lives of many individuals facing the challenges of mental illness. Social media refers broadly to web and mobile platforms that allow individuals to connect with others within a virtual network (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or LinkedIn), where they can share, co-create, or exchange various forms of digital content, including information, messages, photos, or videos ( Ahmed, Ahmad, Ahmad, & Zakaria, 2019 ). Studies have reported that individuals living with a range of mental disorders, including depression, psychotic disorders, or other severe mental illnesses, use social media platforms at comparable rates as the general population, with use ranging from about 70% among middle-age and older individuals, to upwards of 97% among younger individuals ( Aschbrenner, Naslund, Grinley, et al., 2018 ; M. L. Birnbaum, Rizvi, Correll, Kane, & Confino, 2017 ; Brunette et al., 2019 ; Naslund, Aschbrenner, & Bartels, 2016 ). Other exploratory studies have found that many of these individuals with mental illness appear to turn to social media to share their personal experiences, seek information about their mental health and treatment options, and give and receive support from others facing similar mental health challenges ( Bucci, Schwannauer, & Berry, 2019 ; Naslund, Aschbrenner, Marsch, & Bartels, 2016b ).

Across the United States and globally, very few people living with mental illness have access to adequate mental health services ( Patel et al., 2018 ). The wide reach and near ubiquitous use of social media platforms may afford novel opportunities to address these shortfalls in existing mental health care, by enhancing the quality, availability, and reach of services. Recent studies have explored patterns of social media use, impact of social media use on mental health and wellbeing, and the potential to leverage the popularity and interactive features of social media to enhance the delivery of interventions. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the risks and potential harms of social media for mental health ( Orben & Przybylski, 2019 ), and how best to weigh these concerns against potential benefits.

In this commentary, we summarized current research on the use of social media among individuals with mental illness, with consideration of the impact of social media on mental wellbeing, as well as early efforts using social media for delivery of evidence-based programs for addressing mental health problems. We searched for recent peer reviewed publications in Medline and Google Scholar using the search terms “mental health” or “mental illness” and “social media”, and searched the reference lists of recent reviews and other relevant studies. We reviewed the risks, potential harms, and necessary safety precautions with using social media for mental health. Overall, our goal was to consider the role of social media as a potentially viable intervention platform for offering support to persons with mental disorders, promoting engagement and retention in care, and enhancing existing mental health services, while balancing the need for safety. Given this broad objective, we did not perform a systematic search of the literature and we did not apply specific inclusion criteria based on study design or type of mental disorder.

Social Media Use and Mental Health

In 2020, there are an estimated 3.8 billion social media users worldwide, representing half the global population ( We Are Social, 2020 ). Recent studies have shown that individuals with mental disorders are increasingly gaining access to and using mobile devices, such as smartphones ( Firth et al., 2015 ; Glick, Druss, Pina, Lally, & Conde, 2016 ; Torous, Chan, et al., 2014 ; Torous, Friedman, & Keshavan, 2014 ). Similarly, there is mounting evidence showing high rates of social media use among individuals with mental disorders, including studies looking at engagement with these popular platforms across diverse settings and disorder types. Initial studies from 2015 found that nearly half of a sample of psychiatric patients were social media users, with greater use among younger individuals ( Trefflich, Kalckreuth, Mergl, & Rummel-Kluge, 2015 ), while 47% of inpatients and outpatients with schizophrenia reported using social media, of which 79% reported at least once-a-week usage of social media websites ( Miller, Stewart, Schrimsher, Peeples, & Buckley, 2015 ). Rates of social media use among psychiatric populations have increased in recent years, as reflected in a study with data from 2017 showing comparable rates of social media use (approximately 70%) among individuals with serious mental illness in treatment as compared to low-income groups from the general population ( Brunette et al., 2019 ).

Similarly, among individuals with serious mental illness receiving community-based mental health services, a recent study found equivalent rates of social media use as the general population, even exceeding 70% of participants ( Naslund, Aschbrenner, & Bartels, 2016 ). Comparable findings were demonstrated among middle-age and older individuals with mental illness accessing services at peer support agencies, where 72% of respondents reported using social media ( Aschbrenner, Naslund, Grinley, et al., 2018 ). Similar results, with 68% of those with first episode psychosis using social media daily were reported in another study ( Abdel-Baki, Lal, D.-Charron, Stip, & Kara, 2017 ).

Individuals who self-identified as having a schizophrenia spectrum disorder responded to a survey shared through the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI), and reported that visiting social media sites was one of their most common activities when using digital devices, taking up roughly 2 hours each day ( Gay, Torous, Joseph, Pandya, & Duckworth, 2016 ). For adolescents and young adults ages 12 to 21 with psychotic disorders and mood disorders, over 97% reported using social media, with average use exceeding 2.5 hours per day ( M. L. Birnbaum et al., 2017 ). Similarly, in a sample of adolescents ages 13-18 recruited from community mental health centers, 98% reported using social media, with YouTube as the most popular platform, followed by Instagram and Snapchat ( Aschbrenner et al., 2019 ).

Research has also explored the motivations for using social media as well as the perceived benefits of interacting on these platforms among individuals with mental illness. In the sections that follow (see Table 1 for a summary), we consider three potentially unique features of interacting and connecting with others on social media that may offer benefits for individuals living with mental illness. These include: 1) Facilitate social interaction; 2) Access to a peer support network; and 3) Promote engagement and retention in services.

Summary of potential benefits and challenges with social media for mental health

Facilitate Social Interaction

Social media platforms offer near continuous opportunities to connect and interact with others, regardless of time of day or geographic location. This on demand ease of communication may be especially important for facilitating social interaction among individuals with mental disorders experiencing difficulties interacting in face-to-face settings. For example, impaired social functioning is a common deficit in schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and social media may facilitate communication and interacting with others for these individuals ( Torous & Keshavan, 2016 ). This was suggested in one study where participants with schizophrenia indicated that social media helped them to interact and socialize more easily ( Miller et al., 2015 ). Like other online communication, the ability to connect with others anonymously may be an important feature of social media, especially for individuals living with highly stigmatizing health conditions ( Berger, Wagner, & Baker, 2005 ), such as serious mental disorders ( Highton-Williamson, Priebe, & Giacco, 2015 ).

Studies have found that individuals with serious mental disorders ( Spinzy, Nitzan, Becker, Bloch, & Fennig, 2012 ) as well as young adults with mental illness ( Gowen, Deschaine, Gruttadara, & Markey, 2012 ) appear to form online relationships and connect with others on social media as often as social media users from the general population. This is an important observation because individuals living with serious mental disorders typically have few social contacts in the offline world, and also experience high rates of loneliness ( Badcock et al., 2015 ; Giacco, Palumbo, Strappelli, Catapano, & Priebe, 2016 ). Among individuals receiving publicly funded mental health services who use social media, nearly half (47%) reported using these platforms at least weekly to feel less alone ( Brusilovskiy, Townley, Snethen, & Salzer, 2016 ). In another study of young adults with serious mental illness, most indicated that they used social media to help feel less isolated ( Gowen et al., 2012 ). Interestingly, more frequent use of social media among a sample of individuals with serious mental illness was associated with greater community participation, measured as participation in shopping, work, religious activities or visiting friends and family, as well as greater civic engagement, reflected as voting in local elections ( Brusilovskiy et al., 2016 ).

Emerging research also shows that young people with moderate to severe depressive symptoms appear to prefer communicating on social media rather than in-person ( Rideout & Fox, 2018 ), while other studies have found that some individuals may prefer to seek help for mental health concerns online rather than through in-person encounters ( Batterham & Calear, 2017 ). In a qualitative study, participants with schizophrenia described greater anonymity, the ability to discover that other people have experienced similar health challenges, and reducing fears through greater access to information as important motivations for using the Internet to seek mental health information ( Schrank, Sibitz, Unger, & Amering, 2010 ). Because social media does not require the immediate responses necessary in face-to-face communication, it may overcome deficits with social interaction due to psychotic symptoms that typically adversely affect face-to-face conversations ( Docherty et al., 1996 ). Online social interactions may not require the use of non-verbal cues, particularly in the initial stages of interaction ( Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984 ), with interactions being more fluid, and within the control of users, thereby overcoming possible social anxieties linked to in-person interaction ( Indian & Grieve, 2014 ). Furthermore, many individuals with serious mental disorders can experience symptoms including passive social withdrawal, blunted affect and attentional impairment, as well as active social avoidance due to hallucinations or other concerns ( Hansen, Torgalsbøen, Melle, & Bell, 2009 ); thus, potentially reinforcing the relative advantage, as perceived by users, of using social media over in person conversations.

Access to a Peer Support Network

There is growing recognition about the role that social media channels could play in enabling peer support ( Bucci et al., 2019 ; Naslund, Aschbrenner, et al., 2016b ), referred to as a system of mutual giving and receiving where individuals who have endured the difficulties of mental illness can offer hope, friendship, and support to others facing similar challenges ( Davidson, Chinman, Sells, & Rowe, 2006 ; Mead, Hilton, & Curtis, 2001 ). Initial studies exploring use of online self-help forums among individuals with serious mental illnesses have found that individuals with schizophrenia appeared to use these forums for self-disclosure, and sharing personal experiences, in addition to providing or requesting information, describing symptoms, or discussing medication ( Haker, Lauber, & Rössler, 2005 ), while users with bipolar disorder reported using these forums to ask for help from others about their illness ( Vayreda & Antaki, 2009 ). More recently, in a review of online social networking in people with psychosis, Highton-Williamson et al (2015) highlight that an important purpose of such online connections was to establish new friendships, pursue romantic relationships, maintain existing relationships or reconnect with people, and seek online peer support from others with lived experience ( Highton-Williamson et al., 2015 ).

Online peer support among individuals with mental illness has been further elaborated in various studies. In a content analysis of comments posted to YouTube by individuals who self-identified as having a serious mental illness, there appeared to be opportunities to feel less alone, provide hope, find support and learn through mutual reciprocity, and share coping strategies for day-to-day challenges of living with a mental illness ( Naslund, Grande, Aschbrenner, & Elwyn, 2014 ). In another study, Chang (2009) delineated various communication patterns in an online psychosis peer-support group ( Chang, 2009 ). Specifically, different forms of support emerged, including ‘informational support’ about medication use or contacting mental health providers, ‘esteem support’ involving positive comments for encouragement, ‘network support’ for sharing similar experiences, and ‘emotional support’ to express understanding of a peer’s situation and offer hope or confidence ( Chang, 2009 ). Bauer et al. (2013) reported that the main interest in online self-help forums for patients with bipolar disorder was to share emotions with others, allow exchange of information, and benefit by being part of an online social group ( Bauer, Bauer, Spiessl, & Kagerbauer, 2013 ).

For individuals who openly discuss mental health problems on Twitter, a study by Berry et al. (2017) found that this served as an important opportunity to seek support and to hear about the experiences of others ( Berry et al., 2017 ). In a survey of social media users with mental illness, respondents reported that sharing personal experiences about living with mental illness and opportunities to learn about strategies for coping with mental illness from others were important reasons for using social media ( Naslund et al., 2017 ). A computational study of mental health awareness campaigns on Twitter provides further support with inspirational posts and tips being the most shared ( Saha et al., 2019 ). Taken together, these studies offer insights about the potential for social media to facilitate access to an informal peer support network, though more research is necessary to examine how these online interactions may impact intentions to seek care, illness self-management, and clinically meaningful outcomes in offline contexts.

Promote Engagement and Retention in Services

Many individuals living with mental disorders have expressed interest in using social media platforms for seeking mental health information ( Lal, Nguyen, & Theriault, 2018 ), connecting with mental health providers ( M. L. Birnbaum et al., 2017 ), and accessing evidence-based mental health services delivered over social media specifically for coping with mental health symptoms or for promoting overall health and wellbeing ( Naslund et al., 2017 ). With the widespread use of social media among individuals living with mental illness combined with the potential to facilitate social interaction and connect with supportive peers, as summarized above, it may be possible to leverage the popular features of social media to enhance existing mental health programs and services. A recent review by Biagianti et al (2018) found that peer-to-peer support appeared to offer feasible and acceptable ways to augment digital mental health interventions for individuals with psychotic disorders by specifically improving engagement, compliance, and adherence to the interventions, and may also improve perceived social support ( Biagianti, Quraishi, & Schlosser, 2018 ).

Among digital programs that have incorporated peer-to-peer social networking consistent with popular features on social media platforms, a pilot study of the HORYZONS online psychosocial intervention demonstrated significant reductions in depression among patients with first episode psychosis ( Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2013 ). Importantly, the majority of participants (95%) in this study engaged with the peer-to-peer networking feature of the program, with many reporting increases in perceived social connectedness and empowerment in their recovery process ( Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2013 ). This moderated online social therapy program is now being evaluated as part of a large randomized controlled trial for maintaining treatment effects from first episode psychosis services ( Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2019 ).

Other early efforts have demonstrated that use of digital environments with the interactive peer-to-peer features of social media can enhance social functioning and wellbeing in young people at high risk of psychosis ( Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2018 ). There has also been a recent emergence of several mobile apps to support symptom monitoring and relapse prevention in psychotic disorders. Among these apps, the development of PRIME (Personalized Real-time Intervention for Motivational Enhancement) has involved working closely with young people with schizophrenia to ensure that the design of the app has the look and feel of mainstream social media platforms, as opposed to existing clinical tools ( Schlosser et al., 2016 ). This unique approach to the design of the app is aimed at promoting engagement, and ensuring that the app can effectively improve motivation and functioning through goal setting and promoting better quality of life of users with schizophrenia ( Schlosser et al., 2018 ).

Social media platforms could also be used to promote engagement and participation in in-person services delivered through community mental health settings. For example, the peer-based lifestyle intervention called PeerFIT targets weight loss and improved fitness among individuals living with serious mental illness through a combination of in-person lifestyle classes, exercise groups, and use of digital technologies ( Aschbrenner, Naslund, Shevenell, Kinney, & Bartels, 2016 ; Aschbrenner, Naslund, Shevenell, Mueser, & Bartels, 2016 ). The intervention holds tremendous promise as lack of support is one of the largest barriers toward exercise in patients with serious mental illness ( Firth et al., 2016 ) and it is now possible to use social media to counter such. Specifically, in PeerFIT, a private Facebook group is closely integrated into the program to offer a closed platform where participants can connect with the lifestyle coaches, access intervention content, and support or encourage each other as they work towards their lifestyle goals ( Aschbrenner, Naslund, & Bartels, 2016 ; Naslund, Aschbrenner, Marsch, & Bartels, 2016a ). To date, this program has demonstrate preliminary effectiveness for meaningfully reducing cardiovascular risk factors that contribute to early mortality in this patient group ( Aschbrenner, Naslund, Shevenell, Kinney, et al., 2016 ), while the Facebook component appears to have increased engagement in the program, while allowing participants who were unable to attend in-person sessions due to other health concerns or competing demands to remain connected with the program ( Naslund, Aschbrenner, Marsch, McHugo, & Bartels, 2018 ). This lifestyle intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial enrolling young adults with serious mental illness from a variety of real world community mental health services settings ( Aschbrenner, Naslund, Gorin, et al., 2018 ).

These examples highlight the promise of incorporating the features of popular social media into existing programs, which may offer opportunities to safely promote engagement and program retention, while achieving improved clinical outcomes. This is an emerging area of research, as evidenced by several important effectiveness trials underway ( Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2019 ; Aschbrenner, Naslund, Gorin, et al., 2018 ), including efforts to leverage online social networking to support family caregivers of individuals receiving first episode psychosis services ( Gleeson et al., 2017 ).

Challenges with Social Media for Mental Health

The science on the role of social media for engaging persons with mental disorders needs a cautionary note on the effects of social media usage on mental health and well being, particularly in adolescents and young adults. While the risks and harms of social media are frequently covered in the popular press and mainstream news reports, careful consideration of the research in this area is necessary. In a review of 43 studies in young people, many benefits of social media were cited, including increased self-esteem, and opportunities for self-disclosure ( Best, Manktelow, & Taylor, 2014 ). Yet, reported negative effects were an increased exposure to harm, social isolation, depressive symptoms and bullying ( Best et al., 2014 ). In the sections that follow (see Table 1 for a summary), we consider three major categories of risk related to use of social media and mental health. These include: 1) Impact on symptoms; 2) Facing hostile interactions; and 3) Consequences for daily life.

Impact on Symptoms

Studies consistently highlight that use of social media, especially heavy use and prolonged time spent on social media platforms, appears to contribute to increased risk for a variety of mental health symptoms and poor wellbeing, especially among young people ( Andreassen et al., 2016 ; Kross et al., 2013 ; Woods & Scott, 2016 ). This may partly be driven by the detrimental effects of screen time on mental health, including increased severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms, which have been well documented ( Stiglic & Viner, 2019 ). Recent studies have reported negative effects of social media use on mental health of young people, including social comparison pressure with others and greater feeling of social isolation after being rejected by others on social media ( Rideout & Fox, 2018 ). In a study of young adults, it was found that negative comparisons with others on Facebook contributed to risk of rumination and subsequent increases in depression symptoms ( Feinstein et al., 2013 ). Still, the cross sectional nature of many screen time and mental health studies makes it challenging to reach causal inferences ( Orben & Przybylski, 2019 ).

Quantity of social media use is also an important factor, as highlighted in a survey of young adults ages 19 to 32, where more frequent visits to social media platforms each week were correlated with greater depressive symptoms ( Lin et al., 2016 ). More time spent using social media is also associated with greater symptoms of anxiety ( Vannucci, Flannery, & Ohannessian, 2017 ). The actual number of platforms accessed also appears to contribute to risk as reflected in another national survey of young adults where use of a large number of social media platforms was associated with negative impact on mental health ( Primack et al., 2017 ). Among survey respondents using between 7 and 11 different social media platforms compared to respondents using only 2 or fewer platforms, there was a 3 times greater odds of having high levels of depressive symptoms and a 3.2 times greater odds of having high levels of anxiety symptoms ( Primack et al., 2017 ).

Many researchers have postulated that worsening mental health attributed to social media use may be because social media replaces face-to-face interactions for young people ( Twenge & Campbell, 2018 ), and may contribute to greater loneliness ( Bucci et al., 2019 ), and negative effects on other aspects of health and wellbeing ( Woods & Scott, 2016 ). One nationally representative survey of US adolescents found that among respondents who reported more time accessing media such as social media platforms or smartphone devices, there was significantly greater depressive symptoms and increased risk of suicide when compared to adolescents who reported spending more time on non-screen activities, such as in-person social interaction or sports and recreation activities ( Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, & Martin, 2018 ). For individuals living with more severe mental illnesses, the effects of social media on psychiatric symptoms have received less attention. One study found that participation in chat rooms may contribute to worsening symptoms in young people with psychotic disorders ( Mittal, Tessner, & Walker, 2007 ), while another study of patients with psychosis found that social media use appeared to predict low mood ( Berry, Emsley, Lobban, & Bucci, 2018 ). These studies highlight a clear relationship between social media use and mental health that may not be present in general population studies ( Orben & Przybylski, 2019 ), and emphasize the need to explore how social media may contribute to symptom severity and whether protective factors may be identified to mitigate these risks.

Facing Hostile Interactions

Popular social media platforms can create potential situations where individuals may be victimized by negative comments or posts. Cyberbullying represents a form of online aggression directed towards specific individuals, such as peers or acquaintances, which is perceived to be most harmful when compared to random hostile comments posted online ( Hamm et al., 2015 ). Importantly, cyberbullying on social media consistently shows harmful impact on mental health in the form of increased depressive symptoms as well as worsening of anxiety symptoms, as evidenced in a review of 36 studies among children and young people ( Hamm et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, cyberbullying disproportionately impacts females as reflected in a national survey of adolescents in the United States, where females were twice as likely to be victims of cyberbullying compared to males ( Alhajji, Bass, & Dai, 2019 ). Most studies report cross-sectional associations between cyberbullying and symptoms of depression or anxiety ( Hamm et al., 2015 ), though one longitudinal study in Switzerland found that cyberbullying contributed to significantly greater depression over time ( Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012 ).

For youth ages 10 to 17 who reported major depressive symptomatology, there was over 3 times greater odds of facing online harassment in the last year compared to youth who reported mild or no depressive symptoms ( Ybarra, 2004 ). Similarly, in a 2018 national survey of young people, respondents ages 14 to 22 with moderate to severe depressive symptoms were more likely to have had negative experiences when using social media, and in particular, were more likely to report having faced hostile comments, or being “trolled”, from others when compared to respondents without depressive symptoms (31% vs. 14%) ( Rideout & Fox, 2018 ). As these studies depict risks for victimization on social media and the correlation with poor mental health, it is possible that individuals living with mental illness may also experience greater hostility online compared to individuals without mental illness. This would be consistent with research showing greater risk of hostility, including increased violence and discrimination, directed towards individuals living with mental illness in in-person contexts, especially targeted at those with severe mental illnesses ( Goodman et al., 1999 ).

A computational study of mental health awareness campaigns on Twitter reported that while stigmatizing content was rare, it was actually the most spread (re-tweeted) demonstrating that harmful content can travel quickly on social media ( Saha et al., 2019 ). Another study was able to map the spread of social media posts about the Blue Whale Challenge, an alleged game promoting suicide, over Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and other forums across 127 countries ( Sumner et al., 2019 ). These findings show that it is critical to monitor the actual content of social media posts, such as determining whether content is hostile or promotes harm to self or others. This is pertinent because existing research looking at duration of exposure cannot account for the impact of specific types of content on mental health and is insufficient to fully understand the effects of using these platforms on mental health.

Consequences for Daily Life

The ways in which individuals use social media can also impact their offline relationships and everyday activities. To date, reports have described risks of social media use pertaining to privacy, confidentiality, and unintended consequences of disclosing personal health information online ( Torous & Keshavan, 2016 ). Additionally, concerns have been raised about poor quality or misleading health information shared on social media, and that social media users may not be aware of misleading information or conflicts of interest especially when the platforms promote popular content regardless of whether it is from a trustworthy source ( Moorhead et al., 2013 ; Ventola, 2014 ). For persons living with mental illness there may be additional risks from using social media. A recent study that specifically explored the perspectives of social media users with serious mental illnesses, including participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, or major depression, found that over one third of participants expressed concerns about privacy when using social media ( Naslund & Aschbrenner, 2019 ). The reported risks of social media use were directly related to many aspects of everyday life, including concerns about threats to employment, fear of stigma and being judged, impact on personal relationships, and facing hostility or being hurt ( Naslund & Aschbrenner, 2019 ). While few studies have specifically explored the dangers of social media use from the perspectives of individuals living with mental illness, it is important to recognize that use of these platforms may contribute to risks that extend beyond worsening symptoms and that can affect different aspects of daily life.

In this commentary we considered ways in which social media may yield benefits for individuals living with mental illness, while contrasting these with the possible harms. Studies reporting on the threats of social media for individuals with mental illness are mostly cross-sectional, making it difficult to draw conclusions about direction of causation. However, the risks are potentially serious. These risks should be carefully considered in discussions pertaining to use of social media and the broader use of digital mental health technologies, as avenues for mental health promotion, or for supporting access to evidence-based programs or mental health services. At this point, it would be premature to view the benefits of social media as outweighing the possible harms, when it is clear from the studies summarized here that social media use can have negative effects on mental health symptoms, can potentially expose individuals to hurtful content and hostile interactions, and can result in serious consequences for daily life, including threats to employment and personal relationships. Despite these risks, it is also necessary to recognize that individuals with mental illness will continue to use social media given the ease of accessing these platforms and the immense popularity of online social networking. With this in mind, it may be ideal to raise awareness about these possible risks so that individuals can implement necessary safeguards, while also highlighting that there could also be benefits. For individuals with mental illness who use social media, being aware of the risks is an essential first step, and then highlighting ways that use of these popular platforms could also contribute to some benefits, ranging from finding meaningful interactions with others, engaging with peer support networks, and accessing information and services.

To capitalize on the widespread use of social media, and to achieve the promise that these platforms may hold for supporting the delivery of targeted mental health interventions, there is need for continued research to better understand how individuals living with mental illness use social media. Such efforts could inform safety measures and also encourage use of social media in ways that maximize potential benefits while minimizing risk of harm. It will be important to recognize how gender and race contribute to differences in use of social media for seeking mental health information or accessing interventions, as well as differences in how social media might impact mental wellbeing. For example, a national survey of 14- to 22-year olds in the United States found that female respondents were more likely to search online for information about depression or anxiety, and to try to connect with other people online who share similar mental health concerns, when compared to male respondents ( Rideout & Fox, 2018 ). In the same survey, there did not appear to be any differences between racial or ethnic groups in social media use for seeking mental health information ( Rideout & Fox, 2018 ). Social media use also appears to have a differential impact on mental health and emotional wellbeing between females and males ( Booker, Kelly, & Sacker, 2018 ), highlighting the need to explore unique experiences between gender groups to inform tailored programs and services. Research shows that lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals frequently use social media for searching for health information and may be more likely compared to heterosexual individuals to share their own personal health experiences with others online ( Rideout & Fox, 2018 ). Less is known about use of social media for seeking support for mental health concerns among gender minorities, though this is an important area for further investigation as these individuals are more likely to experience mental health problems and more likely to experience online victimization when compared to heterosexual individuals ( Mereish, Sheskier, Hawthorne, & Goldbach, 2019 ).

Similarly, efforts are needed to explore the relationship between social media use and mental health among ethnic and racial minorities. A recent study found that exposure to traumatic online content on social media showing violence or hateful posts directed at racial minorities contributed to increases in psychological distress, PTSD symptoms, and depression among African American and Latinx adolescents in the United States ( Tynes, Willis, Stewart, & Hamilton, 2019 ). These concerns are contrasted by growing interest in the potential for new technologies including social media to expand the reach of services to underrepresented minority groups ( Schueller, Hunter, Figueroa, & Aguilera, 2019 ). Therefore, greater attention is needed to understanding the perspectives of ethnic and racial minorities to inform effective and safe use of social media for mental health promotion efforts.

Research has found that individuals living with mental illness have expressed interest in accessing mental health services through social media platforms. A survey of social media users with mental illness found that most respondents were interested in accessing programs for mental health on social media targeting symptom management, health promotion, and support for communicating with health care providers and interacting with the health system ( Naslund et al., 2017 ). Importantly, individuals with serious mental illness have also emphasized that any mental health intervention on social media would need to be moderated by someone with adequate training and credentials, would need to have ground rules and ways to promote safety and minimize risks, and importantly, would need to be free and easy to access.

An important strength with this commentary is that it combines a range of studies broadly covering the topic of social media and mental health. We have provided a summary of recent evidence in a rapidly advancing field with the goal of presenting unique ways that social media could offer benefits for individuals with mental illness, while also acknowledging the potentially serious risks and the need for further investigation. There are also several limitations with this commentary that warrant consideration. Importantly, as we aimed to address this broad objective, we did not conduct a systematic review of the literature. Therefore, the studies reported here are not exhaustive, and there may be additional relevant studies that were not included. Additionally, we only summarized published studies, and as a result, any reports from the private sector or websites from different organizations using social media or other apps containing social media-like features would have been omitted. Though it is difficult to rigorously summarize work from the private sector, sometimes referred to as “gray literature”, because many of these projects are unpublished and are likely selective in their reporting of findings given the target audience may be shareholders or consumers.

Another notable limitation is that we did not assess risk of bias in the studies summarized in this commentary. We found many studies that highlighted risks associated with social media use for individuals living with mental illness; however, few studies of programs or interventions reported negative findings, suggesting the possibility that negative findings may go unpublished. This concern highlights the need for a future more rigorous review of the literature with careful consideration of bias and an accompanying quality assessment. Most of the studies that we described were from the United States, as well as from other higher income settings such as Australia or the United Kingdom. Despite the global reach of social media platforms, there is a dearth of research on the impact of these platforms on the mental health of individuals in diverse settings, as well as the ways in which social media could support mental health services in lower income countries where there is virtually no access to mental health providers. Future research is necessary to explore the opportunities and risks for social media to support mental health promotion in low-income and middle-income countries, especially as these countries face a disproportionate share of the global burden of mental disorders, yet account for the majority of social media users worldwide ( Naslund et al., 2019 ).

Future Directions for Social Media and Mental Health

As we consider future research directions, the near ubiquitous social media use also yields new opportunities to study the onset and manifestation of mental health symptoms and illness severity earlier than traditional clinical assessments. There is an emerging field of research referred to as ‘digital phenotyping’ aimed at capturing how individuals interact with their digital devices, including social media platforms, in order to study patterns of illness and identify optimal time points for intervention ( Jain, Powers, Hawkins, & Brownstein, 2015 ; Onnela & Rauch, 2016 ). Given that most people access social media via mobile devices, digital phenotyping and social media are closely related ( Torous et al., 2019 ). To date, the emergence of machine learning, a powerful computational method involving statistical and mathematical algorithms ( Shatte, Hutchinson, & Teague, 2019 ), has made it possible to study large quantities of data captured from popular social media platforms such as Twitter or Instagram to illuminate various features of mental health ( Manikonda & De Choudhury, 2017 ; Reece et al., 2017 ). Specifically, conversations on Twitter have been analyzed to characterize the onset of depression ( De Choudhury, Gamon, Counts, & Horvitz, 2013 ) as well as detecting users’ mood and affective states ( De Choudhury, Gamon, & Counts, 2012 ), while photos posted to Instagram can yield insights for predicting depression ( Reece & Danforth, 2017 ). The intersection of social media and digital phenotyping will likely add new levels of context to social media use in the near future.

Several studies have also demonstrated that when compared to a control group, Twitter users with a self-disclosed diagnosis of schizophrenia show unique online communication patterns ( Michael L Birnbaum, Ernala, Rizvi, De Choudhury, & Kane, 2017 ), including more frequent discussion of tobacco use ( Hswen et al., 2017 ), symptoms of depression and anxiety ( Hswen, Naslund, Brownstein, & Hawkins, 2018b ), and suicide ( Hswen, Naslund, Brownstein, & Hawkins, 2018a ). Another study found that online disclosures about mental illness appeared beneficial as reflected by fewer posts about symptoms following self-disclosure (Ernala, Rizvi, Birnbaum, Kane, & De Choudhury, 2017). Each of these examples offers early insights into the potential to leverage widely available online data for better understanding the onset and course of mental illness. It is possible that social media data could be used to supplement additional digital data, such as continuous monitoring using smartphone apps or smart watches, to generate a more comprehensive ‘digital phenotype’ to predict relapse and identify high-risk health behaviors among individuals living with mental illness ( Torous et al., 2019 ).

With research increasingly showing the valuable insights that social media data can yield about mental health states, greater attention to the ethical concerns with using individual data in this way is necessary ( Chancellor, Birnbaum, Caine, Silenzio, & De Choudhury, 2019 ). For instance, data is typically captured from social media platforms without the consent or awareness of users ( Bidargaddi et al., 2017 ), which is especially crucial when the data relates to a socially stigmatizing health condition such as mental illness ( Guntuku, Yaden, Kern, Ungar, & Eichstaedt, 2017 ). Precautions are needed to ensure that data is not made identifiable in ways that were not originally intended by the user who posted the content, as this could place an individual at risk of harm or divulge sensitive health information ( Webb et al., 2017 ; Williams, Burnap, & Sloan, 2017 ). Promising approaches for minimizing these risks include supporting the participation of individuals with expertise in privacy, clinicians, as well as the target individuals with mental illness throughout the collection of data, development of predictive algorithms, and interpretation of findings ( Chancellor et al., 2019 ).

In recognizing that many individuals living with mental illness use social media to search for information about their mental health, it is possible that they may also want to ask their clinicians about what they find online to check if the information is reliable and trustworthy. Alternatively, many individuals may feel embarrassed or reluctant to talk to their clinicians about using social media to find mental health information out of concerns of being judged or dismissed. Therefore, mental health clinicians may be ideally positioned to talk with their patients about using social media, and offer recommendations to promote safe use of these sites, while also respecting their patients’ autonomy and personal motivations for using these popular platforms. Given the gap in clinical knowledge about the impact of social media on mental health, clinicians should be aware of the many potential risks so that they can inform their patients, while remaining open to the possibility that their patients may also experience benefits through use of these platforms. As awareness of these risks grows, it may be possible that new protections will be put in place by industry or through new policies that will make the social media environment safer. It is hard to estimate a number needed to treat or harm today given the nascent state of research, which means the patient and clinician need to weigh the choice on a personal level. Thus offering education and information is an important first step in that process. As patients increasingly show interest in accessing mental health information or services through social media, it will be necessary for health systems to recognize social media as a potential avenue for reaching or offering support to patients. This aligns with growing emphasis on the need for greater integration of digital psychiatry, including apps, smartphones, or wearable devices, into patient care and clinical services through institution-wide initiatives and training clinical providers ( Hilty, Chan, Torous, Luo, & Boland, 2019 ). Within a learning healthcare environment where research and care are tightly intertwined and feedback between both is rapid, the integration of digital technologies into services may create new opportunities for advancing use of social media for mental health.

As highlighted in this commentary, social media has become an important part of the lives of many individuals living with mental disorders. Many of these individuals use social media to share their lived experiences with mental illness, to seek support from others, and to search for information about treatment recommendations, accessing mental health services, and coping with symptoms ( Bucci et al., 2019 ; Highton-Williamson et al., 2015 ; Naslund, Aschbrenner, et al., 2016b ). As the field of digital mental health advances, the wide reach, ease of access, and popularity of social media platforms could be used to allow individuals in need of mental health services or facing challenges of mental illness to access evidence-based treatment and support. To achieve this end and to explore whether social media platforms can advance efforts to close the gap in available mental health services in the United States and globally, it will be essential for researchers to work closely with clinicians and with those affected by mental illness to ensure that possible benefits of using social media are carefully weighed against anticipated risks.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Naslund is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (U19MH113211). Dr. Aschbrenner is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (1R01MH110965-01).

Publisher's Disclaimer: This Author Accepted Manuscript is a PDF file of a an unedited peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication but has not been copyedited or corrected. The official version of record that is published in the journal is kept up to date and so may therefore differ from this version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

• Abdel-Baki A, Lai S, D.-Charron O, Stip E, & Kara N, (2017). Understanding access and use of technology among youth with first - episode psychosis to inform the development of technology - enabled therapeutic interventions . Early intervention in psychiatry , 77 ( 1 ), 72–76. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmed YA, Ahmad MN, Ahmad N, & Zakaria NH (2019). Social media for knowledge-sharing: A systematic literature review . Telematics and informatics , 37 , 72–112 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Alhajji M, Bass S, & Dai T (2019). Cyberbullying, mental health, and violence in adolescents and associations with sex and race: data from the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey . Global pediatric health , 6 , 2333794X19868887. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvarez-Jimenez M, Bendall S, Koval P, Rice S, Cagliarini D, Valentine L, … Penn DL (2019). HORYZONS trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a moderated online social therapy to maintain treatment effects from first-episode psychosis services . BMJ open , 9 ( 2 ), e024104. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvarez-Jimenez M, Bendall S, Lederman R, Wadley G, Chinnery G, Vargas S, … Gleeson JF (2013). On the HORYZON: moderated online social therapy for long-term recovery in first episode psychosis . Schizophrenia research , 143 ( 1 ), 143–149. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvarez-Jimenez M, Gleeson J, Bendall S, Penn D, Yung A, Ryan R, … Miles C (2018). Enhancing social functioning in young people at Ultra High Risk (UHR) for psychosis: A pilot study of a novel strengths and mindfulness-based online social therapy . Schizophrenia research , 202 , 369–377. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andreassen CS, Billieux J, Griffiths MD, Kuss DJ, Demetrovics Z, Mazzoni E, & Pallesen S (2016). The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study . Psychology of Addictive Behaviors , 30 ( 2 ), 252. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, & Bartels SJ (2016). A mixed methods study of peer-to-peer support in a group-based lifestyle intervention for adults with serious mental illness . Psychiatric rehabilitation journal , 39 ( 4 ), 328. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Gorin AA, Mueser KT, Scherer EA, Viron M, … Bartels SJ, (2018). Peer support and mobile health technology targeting obesity-related cardiovascular risk in young adults with serious mental illness: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial . Contemporary clinical trials , 74 , 97–106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Grinley T, Bienvenida JCM, Bartels SJ, & Brunette M (2018). A Survey of Online and Mobile Technology Use at Peer Support Agencies . Psychiatric Quarterly , 1–10. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Shevenell M, Kinney E, & Bartels SJ (2016). A pilot study of a peer-group lifestyle intervention enhanced with mHealth technology and social media for adults with serious mental illness . The Journal of nervous and mental disease , 204 ( 6 ), 483–486. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Shevenell M, Mueser KT, & Bartels SJ (2016). Feasibility of behavioral weight loss treatment enhanced with peer support and mobile health technology for individuals with serious mental illness . Psychiatric Quarterly , 57 ( 3 ), 401–415. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Tomlinson EF, Kinney A, Pratt SI, & Brunette MF (2019). Adolescents’ Use of Digital Technologies and Preferences for Mobile Health Coaching in Mental Health Settings . Frontiers in Public Health . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Badcock JC, Shah S, Mackinnon A, Stain HJ, Galletly C, Jablensky A, & Morgan VA (2015). Loneliness in psychotic disorders and its association with cognitive function and symptom profile . Schizophrenia research , 169 ( 1-3 ), 268–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batterham PJ, & Calear AJ (2017). Preferences for internet-based mental health interventions in an adult online sample: Findings from ann online community survey . JMIR mental health , 4 ( 2 ), e26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer R, Bauer M, Spiessl H, & Kagerbauer T (2013). Cyber-support: an analysis of online self-help forums (online self-help forums in bipolar disorder) . Nordic journal of psychiatry , 67 ( 3 ), 185–190. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger M, Wagner TH, & Baker LC (2005). Internet use and stigmatized illness . Social science & medicine , 67 ( 8 ), 1821–1827. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry N, Emsley R, Lobban F, & Bucci S (2018). Social media and its relationship with mood, self - esteem and paranoia in psychosis . Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 138 , 558–570. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry N, Lobban F, Belousov M, Emsley R, Nenadic G, & Bucci S (2017). # Why We Tweet MH: understanding why people use Twitter to discuss mental health problems . Journal of medical Internet research , 19 ( 4 ), e107. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Best P, Manktelow R, & Taylor B (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review . Children and Youth Services Review , 41 , 27–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biagianti B, Quraishi SH, & Schlosser DA (2018). Potential benefits of incorporating peer-to-peer interactions into digital interventions for psychotic disorders: a systematic review . Psychiatric Services , 69 ( 4 ), 377–388. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bidargaddi N, Musiat P, Makinen V-P, Ermes M, Schrader G, & Licinio J (2017). Digital footprints: facilitating large-scale environmental psychiatric research in naturalistic settings through data from everyday technologies . Molecular psychiatry , 22 ( 2 ), 164. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birnbaum ML, Emala SK, Rizvi AF, De Choudhury M, & Kane JM (2017). A Collaborative Approach to Identifying Social Media Markers of Schizophrenia by Employing Machine Learning and Clinical Appraisals . Journal of medical Internet research , 79 ( 8 ), e289. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birnbaum ML, Rizvi AF, Correll CU, Kane JM, & Confino J (2017). Role of social media and the Internet in pathways to care for adolescents and young adults with psychotic disorders and non - psychotic mood disorders . Early intervention in psychiatry , 77 ( 4 ), 290–295. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booker CL, Kelly YJ, & Sacker A (2018). Gender differences in the associations between age trends of social media interaction and well-being among 10-15 year olds in the UK . BMC public health , 18 ( 1 ), 321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunette M, Achtyes E, Pratt S, Stilwell K, Opperman M, Guarino S, & Kay-Lambkin F (2019). Use of smartphones, computers and social media among people with SMI: opportunity for intervention . Community mental health journal , 1–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brusilovskiy E, Townley G, Snethen G, & Salzer MS (2016). Social media use, community participation and psychological well-being among individuals with serious mental illnesses . Computers in Human Behavior , 65 , 232–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucci S, Schwannauer M, & Berry N (2019). The digital revolution and its impact on mental health care . Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice , 1–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chancellor S, Birnbaum ML, Caine ED, Silenzio V, & De Choudhury M (2019). A taxonomy of ethical tensions in inferring mental health states from social media . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang HJ (2009). Online supportive interactions: Using a network approach to examine communication patterns within a psychosis social support group in Taiwan . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 60 ( 7 ), 1504–1517. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson L, Chinman M, Sells D, & Rowe M (2006). Peer support among adults with serious mental illness: a report from the field . Schizophrenia bulletin , 32 ( 3 ), 443–450. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Choudhury M, Gamon M, & Counts S (2012). Happy, nervous or surprised? classification of human affective states in social media . Paper presented at the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Choudhury M, Gamon M, Counts S, & Horvitz E (2013). Predicting Depression via Social Media . Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. [ Google Scholar ]
• Docherty NM, Hawkins KA, Hoffman RE, Quinlan DM, Rakfeldt J, & Sledge WH (1996). Working memory, attention, and communication disturbances in schizophrenia . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 105 ( 2 ), 212. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emala SK, Rizvi AF, Birnbaum ML, Kane JM, & De Choudhury M (2017). Linguistic Markers Indicating Therapeutic Outcomes of Social Media Disclosures of Schizophrenia . Proc. ACMHum.-Comput. Interact , 1 ( 1 ), 43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinstein BA, Hershenberg R, Bhatia V, Latack JA, Meuwly N, & Davila J (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism . Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 2 ( 3 ), 161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Firth J, Cotter J, Torous J, Bucci S, Firth JA, & Yung AR (2015). Mobile phone ownership and endorsement of “mHealth” among people with psychosis: a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies . Schizophrenia bulletin , 42 ( 2 ), 448–455. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Firth J, Rosenbaum S, Stubbs B, Gorczynski P, Yung AR, & Vancampfort D (2016). Motivating factors and barriers towards exercise in severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Psychological medicine , 46 ( 14 ), 2869–2881. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gay K, Torous J, Joseph A, Pandya A, & Duckworth K (2016). Digital technology use among individuals with schizophrenia: results of an online survey . JMIR mental health , 3 ( 2 ), el5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giacco D, Palumbo C, Strappelli N, Catapano F, & Priebe S (2016). Social contacts and loneliness in people with psychotic and mood disorders . Comprehensive Psychiatry , 66 , 59–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gleeson J, Lederman R, Herrman H, Koval P, Eleftheriadis D, Bendall S, … Alvarez-Jimenez M (2017). Moderated online social therapy for carers of young people recovering from first-episode psychosis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial . Trials , 75 ( 1 ), 27. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick G, Druss B, Pina J, Lally C, & Conde M (2016). Use of mobile technology in a community mental health setting . Journal of telemedicine and telecare , 22 ( 7 ), 430–435. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman LA, Thompson KM, Weinfurt K, Corl S, Acker P, Mueser KT, & Rosenberg SD (1999). Reliability of reports of violent victimization and posttraumatic stress disorder among men and women with serious mental illness . Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies , 12 ( 4 ), 587–599. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gowen K, Deschaine M, Gruttadara D, & Markey D (2012). Young adults with mental health conditions and social networking websites: seeking tools to build community . Psychiatric rehabilitation journal , 35 ( 3 ), 245–250. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guntuku SC, Yaden DB, Kern ML, Ungar LH, & Eichstaedt JC (2017). Detecting depression and mental illness on social media: an integrative review . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 18 , 43–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haker EL, Lauber C, & Rossler W (2005). Internet forums: a self - help approach for individuals with schizophrenia? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 112 ( 6 ), 474–477. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, … Hartling L (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies . JAMA pediatrics , 769 ( 8 ), 770–777. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen CF, Torgalsboen A-K, Melle I, & Bell MD (2009). Passive/apathetic social withdrawal and active social avoidance in schizophrenia: difference in underlying psychological processes . The Journal of nervous and mental disease , 197 ( 4 ), 274–277. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Highton-Williamson E, Priebe S, & Giacco D (2015). Online social networking in people with psychosis: a systematic review . International Journal of Social Psychiatry , 61 ( 1 ), 92–101. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilty DM, Chan S, Torous J, Luo J, & Boland RJ (2019). Mobile health, smartphone/device, and apps for psychiatry and medicine: competencies, training, and faculty development issues . Psychiatric Clinics , 42 ( 2 ), 513–534. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hswen Y, Naslund JA, Brownstein JS, & Hawkins JB (2018a). Monitoring online discussions about suicide among Twitter users with schizophrenia: exploratory study . JMIR mental health , 5 ( 4 ), e11483. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hswen Y, Naslund JA, Brownstein JS, & Hawkins JB (2018b). Online communication about depression and anxiety among twitter users with schizophrenia: preliminary findings to inform a digital phenotype using social media . Psychiatric Quarterly , 89 ( 3 ), 569–580. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hswen Y, Naslund JA, Chandrashekar P, Siegel R, Brownstein JS, & Hawkins JB (2017). Exploring online communication about cigarette smoking among Twitter users who self-identify as having schizophrenia . Psychiatry research , 257 , 479–484. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Indian M, & Grieve R (2014). When Facebook is easier than face-to-face: social support dervied from Facebook in socially anxious individuals . Personality and Individual Differences , 59 , 102–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jain SH, Powers BW, Hawkins JB, & Brownstein JS (2015). The digital phenotype . Nature Biotechnology , 33 ( 5 ), 462. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiesler S, Siegel J, & McGuire TW (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication . American Psychologist , 39 , 1123–1134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kross E, Verduyn P, Demiralp E, Park J, Lee DS, Lin N, … Ybarra O (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults . PloS one , 5 ( 8 ), e69841. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lai S, Nguyen V, & Theriault J (2018). Seeking mental health information and support online: experiences and perspectives of young people receiving treatment for first - episode psychosis . Early intervention in psychiatry , 72 ( 3 ), 324–330. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin LY, Sidani JE, Shensa A, Radovic A, Miller E, Colditz JB, … Primack BA (2016). Association between social media use and depression among US young adults . Depression and anxiety , 22 ( 4 ), 323–331. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Machmutow K, Perren S, Sticca F, & Alsaker FD (2012). Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties , 17 ( 3-4 ), 403–420. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manikonda L, & De Choudhury M (2017). Modeling and understanding visual attributes of mental health disclosures in social media . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead S, Hilton D, & Curtis L (2001). Peer support: A theoretical perspective . Psychiatric rehabilitation journal , 25 ( 2 ), 134. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mereish EH, Sheskier M, Hawthorne DJ, & Goldbach JT (2019). Sexual orientation disparities in mental health and substance use among Black American young people in the USA: effects of cyber and bias-based victimisation . Culture, health & sexuality , 21 ( 9 ), 985–998. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller BJ, Stewart A, Schrimsher J, Peeples D, & Buckley PF (2015). How connected are people with schizophrenia? Cell phone, computer, email, and social media use . Psychiatry research , 225 ( 3 ), 458–463. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mittal VA, Tessner KD, & Walker EF (2007). Elevated social Internet use and schizotypal personality disorder in adolescents . Schizophrenia research , 94 ( 1-3 ), 50–57. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, & Hoving C (2013). A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication . Journal of medical Internet research , 15 ( 4 ), e85. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, & Aschbrenner KA (2019). Risks to privacy with use of social media: understanding the views of social media users with serious mental illness . Psychiatric Services , appi. ps. 201800520. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, & Bartels SJ (2016). How people living with serious mental illness use smartphones, mobile apps, and social media . Psychiatric rehabilitation journal , 39 ( 4 ), 364–367. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Marsch LA, & Bartels SJ (2016a). Feasibility and acceptability of Facebook for health promotion among people with serious mental illness . Digital health , 2 , 2055207616654822. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Marsch LA, & Bartels SJ (2016b). The future of mental health care: peer-to-peer support and social media . Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , 25 ( 2 ), 113–122. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Marsch LA, McHugo GJ, & Bartels SJ (2018). Facebook for supporting a lifestyle intervention for people with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia: an exploratory study . Psychiatric Quarterly , 59 ( 1 ), 81–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, McHugo GJ, Unutzer J, Marsch LA, & Bartels SJ (2017). Exploring opportunities to support mental health care using social media: A survey of social media users with mental illness . Early intervention in psychiatry . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Gonsalves PP, Gruebner O, Pendse SR, Smith SL, Sharma A, & Raviola G (2019). Digital innovations for global mental health: opportunities for data science, task sharing, and early intervention . Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry , 1–15. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naslund JA, Grande SW, Aschbrenner KA, & Elwyn G (2014). Naturally occurring peer support through social media: the experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube . PloS one , 9 ( 10 ), e110171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onnela J-P, & Rauch SL (2016). Harnessing smartphone-based digital phenotyping to enhance behavioral and mental health . Neuropsychopharmacology , 41 ( 7 ), 1691. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orben A, & Przybylski AK (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use . Nature Human Behaviour , 3 ( 2 ), 173. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel V, Saxena S, Lund C, Thornicroft G, Baingana F, Bolton P, … Eaton J (2018). The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development . The Lancet . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Primack BA, Shensa A, Escobar-Viera CG, Barrett EL, Sidani JE, Colditz JB, & James AE (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults . Computers in Human Behavior , 69 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reece AG, & Danforth CM (2017). Instagram photos reveal predictive markers of depression . EPJ Data Science , 6 ( 1 ), 15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reece AG, Reagan AJ, Lix KL, Dodds PS, Danforth CM, & Langer EJ (2017). Forecasting the onset and course of mental illness with Twitter data . Scientific reports , 7 ( 1 ), 13006. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rideout V, & Fox S (2018). Digital health practices, social media use, and mental well-being among teens and young adults in the U.S Retrieved from San Francisco, CA: https://www.hopelab.org/reports/pdf/a-national-survey-by-hopelab-and-well-being-trust-2018.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Saha K, Torous J, Ernala SK, Rizuto C, Stafford A, & De Choudhury M (2019). A computational study of mental health awareness campaigns on social media . Translational behavioral medicine . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlosser DA, Campellone T, Kim D, Truong B, Vergani S, Ward C, & Vinogradov S (2016). Feasibility of PRIME: a cognitive neuroscience-informed mobile app intervention to enhance motivated behavior and improve quality of life in recent onset schizophrenia . JMIR research protocols , 5 ( 2 ). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlosser DA, Campellone TR, Truong B, Etter K, Vergani S, Komaiko K, & Vinogradov S (2018). Efficacy of PRIME, a mobile app intervention designed to improve motivation in young people with schizophrenia . Schizophrenia bulletin , 44 ( 5 ), 1010–1020. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrank B, Sibitz I, Unger A, & Amering M (2010). How patients with schizophrenia use the internet: qualitative study . Journal of medical Internet research , 12 ( 5 ), e70. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schueller SM, Hunter JF, Figueroa C, & Aguilera A (2019). Use of digital mental health for marginalized and underserved populations . Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry , 6 ( 3 ), 243–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shatte AB, Hutchinson DM, & Teague SJ (2019). Machine learning in mental health: a scoping review of methods and applications . Psychological medicine , 49 ( 9 ), 1426–1448. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spinzy Y, Nitzan U, Becker G, Bloch Y, & Fennig S (2012). Does the Internet offer social opportunities for individuals with schizophrenia? a cross-sectional pilot study . Psychiatry research , 198 ( 2 ), 319–320. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stiglic N, & Viner RM (2019). Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews . BMJopen , 9 ( 1 ), e023191. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumner SA, Galik S, Mathieu J, Ward M, Kiley T, Bartholow B, … Mork P (2019). Temporal and geographic patterns of social media posts about an emerging suicide game . Journal of Adolescent Health . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torous J, Chan SR, Tan SY-M, Behrens J, Mathew I, Conrad EJ, … Keshavan M (2014). Patient smartphone ownership and interest in mobile apps to monitor symptoms of mental health conditions: a survey in four geographically distinct psychiatric clinics . JMIR mental health , 1 ( 1 ), e5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torous J, Friedman R, & Keshavan M (2014). Smartphone ownership and interest in mobile applications to monitor symptoms of mental health conditions . JMIR mHealth and uHealth , 2 ( 1 ), e2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torous J, & Keshavan M (2016). The role of social media in schizophrenia: evaluating risks, benefits, and potential . Current opinion in psychiatry , 29 ( 3 ), 190–195. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torous J, Wisniewski H, Bird B, Carpenter E, David G, Elejalde E, … Henson P (2019). Creating a digital health smartphone app and digital phenotyping platform for mental health and diverse healthcare needs: an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach . Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trefflich F, Kalckreuth S, Mergl R, & Rummel-Kluge C (2015). Psychiatric patients’ internet use corresponds to the internet use of the general public . Psychiatry research , 226 , 136–141. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge JM, & Campbell WK (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study . Preventive medicine reports , 12 , 271–283. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge JM, Joiner TE, Rogers ML, & Martin GN (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time . Clinical Psychological Science , 6 ( 1 ), 3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tynes BM, Willis HA, Stewart AM, & Hamilton MW (2019). Race-related traumatic events online and mental health among adolescents of color . Journal of Adolescent Health , 65 ( 3 ), 371–377. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vannucci A, Flannery KM, & Ohannessian CM (2017). Social media use and anxiety in emerging adults . Journal of affective disorders , 207 , 163–166. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vayreda A, & Antaki C (2009). Social support and unsolicited advice in a bipolar disorder online forum . Qualitative health research , 19 ( 7 ), 931–942. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ventola CL (2014). Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices . Pharmacy and Therapeutics , 39 ( 7 ), 491. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• We Are Social. (2020). Digital in 2020 . Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2019
• Webb H, Jirotka M, Stahl BC, Housley W, Edwards A, Williams M, … Burnap P (2017). The ethical challenges of publishing Twitter data for research dissemination . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams ML, Burnap P, & Sloan L (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation . Sociology , 57 ( 6 ), 1149–1168. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woods HC, & Scott H (2016). # Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem . Journal of adolescence , 57 , 41–49. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ybarra ML (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet harassment among young regular Internet users . Cyber Psychology & Behavior , 7 ( 2 ), 247–257. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Scholars debate: Does social media help or hurt free speech?

Platforms that were once expected to democratize dialogue have instead made it harder to listen

By Will Kane

October 5, 2017

Professor Robert Reich speaks to the crowd about free speech in an era of digital media. (UC Berkeley photo by Hulda Nelson)

Social media and digital communication haven’t made it easier to talk about difficult, politically contentious ideas, or given under-represented voices equal footing with politicians and media elites, UC Berkeley Professor Robert Reich said Thursday.

Reich, a professor of public policy, spoke at the start of a day-long campus event about free speech in the digital age. Ten years ago, he told the eager crowd in Banatao Auditorium, he thought platforms like Facebook and Twitter would open a great world of digital debate about policy, politics and the future of America.

Instead, he said, they have created homogenous communities where like-minded people recirculate the same thoughts, arguments and often-false facts without any outside perspectives.

“I find it continuously frustrating because I cannot find a medium in which I can get through to people who fundamentally disagree with me,” he said. “It is very, very difficult in this world, as we have constructed it. The echo chambers have been constructed by these mechanisms, these algorithms.”

Social media profiles are also often used to doxx, or expose and intimidate, those who share unpopular political opinions online, or attract people intent on physically assaulting anyone they disagree with, Reich said.

“Social media has become a vehicle for repressing views, because people are afraid of being intimidated into not expressing views that may not be popular or may be misinterpreted,” Reich said.

Companies like Facebook, Twitter and data-mining companies like Equifax have a duty to let people create an online “zone of privacy” where they can express their political views without threat of intimidation, Reich said.

And while much communication happens online, institutions still have a duty to create and protect physical spaces for free speech, he added.

Reich, who teaches in the Goldman School of Public Policy and was secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton, said institutions like UC Berkeley must invest in the “free exchange of ideas. It Is worth almost anything we spend on it.”

“it is our responsibility as students, as professors, as teachers, as administrators to make, this a a robust and interesting intellectual experience, … to spend our lives reaching out to people who disagree with us,” he said.

Thursday’s event, sponsored by the Berkeley Center for New Media, comes a little more than a week after YouTube personality Milo Yiannopoulos was invited by students to hold a four-day “Free Speech Week” on campus, and roughly a month after conservative journalist Ben Shapiro spoke to students in Zellerbach Hall. Yiannopoulos was uninvited by his student sponsors, but still came to campus under heavy security for a 15-minute photo opportunity.

Chancellor Carol Christ speaks to the crowd about free speech on digital platforms. (UC Berkeley photo by Hulda Nelson)

The two appearances offered a surprising study in the evolving difference between digital and real-life forms of free speech, Chancellor Carol Christ said in opening remarks.

Shapiro, Christ said, spoke in a prominent campus venue and took questions from students. His speech was livestreamed to a larger audience. Yiannopoulos’s appearance was different, she said.

“To use a metaphor, (Shapiro’s) speech was the object, and the digital representation was the shadow,” said Christ, who is an expert in Victorian literature. “The Milo Yiannopoulos event was really quite different.”

Yiannopoulos’s event was chaotic and poorly organized, Christ noted. Advertised speakers called administrators to say they had never been invited to campus and had no intention of speaking at Berkeley. The student group that invited him missed contract deadlines and failed to make required deposits.

Yet all the while, Yiannopoulos was posting videos about the event to his Facebook and YouTube pages.

“It seemed to me that my metaphor of the object and the shadow was reversed, and the object was the digital footprint, whatever you make digitally of this setup, those shards of things,” she said. “The shadow was anything actual that happened.”

A video of the all-day panel , which included forums on “The Purpose of Debate,” “The Spaces of Free Speech” and “Violence and Free Speech” is available.

Contact Will Kane at [email protected] .

The Pros and Cons of Social Media for Youth

A new review article looks at how social media affects well-being in youth...

Posted October 16, 2021 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma

• Social media has both positive and negative effects on well-being in youth.
• Social media impacts four distinct areas for youth: connections, identity, learning, and emotions.

More than 90 percent of teenagers in the U.S. have a smartphone. Access to this type of technology and social networking changes the playing field for young people who are simultaneously developing a sense of identity and new social relationships.

We have certainly heard about the downside of teens and smartphones: cyberbullying, anxiety , and a misrepresented sense of body image . Research demonstrates there are some benefits too, including the ability to keep in touch with friends and loved ones – especially when the COVID-19 pandemic limited in-person social interactions.

A new systematic review published in the journal Adolescent Research Review combines the evidence from qualitative studies that investigate adolescent social media use.

The authors found, in short, that the links between adolescent well-being and social media are complicated and depend on a broad range of factors.

“Adults have always been concerned about how the latest technology will harm children,” said Amanda Purington, director of evaluation and research for ACT for Youth in the BCTR and a doctoral candidate in Cornell’s Social Media Lab. “This goes back to radio programs, comic books, novels – you name it, adults were worried about it. The same is now true for social media. And yes, there are concerns – there are many potential risks and harms. But there are potential benefits, too.”

Reviewing 19 studies of young people ages 11 to 20, the authors identified four major themes related to social media and well-being that ultimately affected aspects of young people’s mental health and sense of self.

The first theme, connections, describes how social media either supports or hinders young people’s relationships with their peers, friends, and family. The studies in the review provided plenty of examples of ways that social media helped youth build connections with others. Participants reported that social media helped to create intimacy with friends and could improve popularity. Youth who said they were shy reported having an easier time making friends through social media. Studies also found social media was useful in keeping in touch with family and friends who live far away and allowing groups to communicate in masse. In seven papers, participants identified social media as a source of support and reassurance.

In 13 of the papers, youth reported that social media also harmed their connections with others. They provided examples of bullying and threats and an atmosphere of criticism and negativity during social media interactions. Youth cited the anonymity of social media as part of the problem, as well as miscommunication that can occur online.

Study participants also reported a feeling of disconnection associated with relationships on social media. Some youth felt rejected or left out when their social media posts did not receive the feedback they expected. Others reported feeling frustrated, lonely , or paranoid about being left out.

The second theme, identity, describes how adolescents are supported or frustrated on social media in trying to develop their identities.

Youth in many of the studies described how social media helped them to “come out of their shells” and express their true identities. They reported liking the ability to write and edit their thoughts and use images to express themselves. They reported that feedback they received on social media helped to bolster their self-confidence and they reported enjoying the ability to look back on memories to keep track of how their identity changed over time.

In eight studies, youth described ways that social media led to inauthentic representations of themselves. They felt suspicious that others would use photo editing to disguise their identities and complained about how easy it was to deliver communications slyly, rather than with the honesty required in face-to-face communication. They also felt self-conscious about posting selfies, and reported that the feedback they received would affect their feelings of self-worth .

The third theme, learning, describes how social media use supports or hinders education . In many studies, participants reported how social media helped to broaden their perspectives and expose them to new ideas and topics. Many youths specifically cited exposure to political and social movements, such as Black Lives Matter.

On the flip side, youth in five studies reported that social media interfered with their education. They said that phone notifications and the pressure to constantly check in on social media distracted them from their studies. Participants reported that they found it difficult to spend quiet time alone without checking their phones. Others said the 24-7 nature of social media kept them up too late at night, making it difficult to get up for school the next day.

The fourth theme, emotions, describes the ways that social media impacts young people’s emotional experiences in both positive and negative ways. In 11 papers, participants reported that social media had a positive effect on their emotions. Some reported it improved their mood, helped them to feel excited, and often prompted laughter . (Think funny animal videos.) Others reported that social media helped to alleviate negative moods, including annoyance, anger , and boredom . They described logging onto social media as a form of stress management .

But in nearly all of the papers included in the review, participants said social media was a source of worry and pressure. Participants expressed concern about judgment from their peers. They often felt embarrassed about how they looked in images. Many participants expressed worry that they were addicted to social media. Others fretted about leaving a digital footprint that would affect them later in life. Many participants reported experiencing pressure to constantly respond and stay connected on social media. And a smaller number of participants reported feeling disturbed by encountering troubling content, such as self-harm and seeing former partners in new relationships.

“As this review article highlights, social media provides spaces for adolescents to work on some of the central developmental tasks of their age, such as forming deeper connections with peers and exploring identity,” Purington said. “I believe the key is to help youth maximize these benefits while minimizing risks, and we can do this by educating youth about how to use social media in ways that are positive, safe, and prosocial.”

The take-home message: The body of evidence on social media and well-being paints a complicated picture of how this new technology is affecting youth. While there are certainly benefits when young people use social media, there is also a broad range of pressures and negative consequences.

The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research at Cornell University is focused on using research findings to improve health and well-being of people at all stages of life.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

learnhatkey.com

speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media

Shree Ganeshay Namah

Speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media

Table of Contents

Introduction

Social media is a new platform for connecting people all over the world.

It is used to share knowledge, information, and even feelings.

Here is our sample speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media with important points.

Points for the speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

1. beginning

2. what is social media

4. advantages

5. disadvantages

6. conclusion

speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

Respected Principal, teachers, and my friends, good afternoon, my name is John. I would like to express my thoughts about the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

Social media is a platform of social sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, tumbler, and many more.

These social media sites allow users all over the world to send instant messages, pictures, videos, infographics, and feelings of various kinds.

Now I would like to tell you about the advantages and disadvantages of social media. It allows its users to connect with people all over the world. users can send general, professional, commercial, and varied information to each other. People can stay in touch with each other instantly through messages, photos, ideas, and Facebook live or youtube live. People become aware of various cultures, traditions, and celebrations in the world.

Now we will some serious disadvantages of social media. Even though social media has so many advantages, there are some disadvantages of social media. The personal data of millions of users is used for marketing and other kinds of misuse. Most social media service providers or hackers are behind this. They are using this precious data for commercial purposes or for online theft, cheating, and fraud.

Totally unfamiliar people become familiar with social media and might develop emotional relationships which lead to drastic effects and end in a sad and disappointing way.

Many times, people get addicted to such social media sites and always keep on checking notifications resulting in emotional disturbances and loss of productivity. Various fraud people trap such users and cheat or rob them.

In this way, we have the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

We must use it sensibly and carefully for its maximum benefits. Don’t allow children to use these addictive platforms directly without parental control and observation. Never give your personal details like mobile numbers, bank account numbers, or passwords to anybody.

Social media is the best platform to share and care but be always cautious. Never believe in anyone blindly. Then only you will get maximum benefits from it through social interaction for the well-being of humankind and the whole earth.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

This is our sample speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

I hope you will like it and find it useful.

With love + respect from team learnhatkey.com

One thought on “speech about the advantages and disadvantages of social media”

• Pingback: Topics for speech in school assembly - learnhatkey.com

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Post

The Essence of Freedom: A Pathway to Empowerment and Equality The Essence of Freedom: A Pathway to Empowerment and Equality

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I stand before you to discuss a topic that is deeply ingrained in the fabric of our society – freedom. Freedom is a fundamental

Speech for Mother’s Day Speech for Mother’s Day

Introduction Here is our speech for Mother’s Day. speech for Mother’s Day Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, and beloved mothers, Today, we gather here to celebrate a remarkable occasion: Mother’s

How to start a speech of guest introduction How to start a speech of guest introduction

Shree Ganeshay Namah How to start a speech of guest introduction Introduction In every function, there is a chief guest and the important task from the organizer’s point of view

Current topics for speech Current topics for speech

Shree Ganeshay Namah Current topics for speech Introduction Here is the list of current topics for speech Current topics for speech We will see the list of current topics for

Speech to my best friend Speech to my best friend

Shree Ganeshay Namah Speech to my best friend Introduction Life without friends is no real life. We have given this sample speech about my best friend that can be used

Skip to content

Read the latest news stories about Mailman faculty, research, and events. 

Departments

We integrate an innovative skills-based curriculum, research collaborations, and hands-on field experience to prepare students.

Learn more about our research centers, which focus on critical issues in public health.

Our Faculty

Meet the faculty of the Mailman School of Public Health. 

Become a Student

Life and community, how to apply.

Learn how to apply to the Mailman School of Public Health. 

Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In.

A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage girls, and all teenage users of the app linked it to experiences of anxiety and depression. It isn’t the first evidence of social media’s harms. Watchdog groups have identified Facebook and Instagram as avenues for cyberbullying , and reports have linked TikTok to dangerous and antisocial behavior, including a recent spate of school vandalism .

As social media has proliferated worldwide—Facebook has 2.85 billion users—so too have concerns over how the platforms are affecting individual and collective wellbeing. Social media is criticized for being addictive by design and for its role in the spread of misinformation on critical issues from vaccine safety to election integrity, as well as the rise of right-wing extremism. Social media companies, and many users, defend the platforms as avenues for promoting creativity and community-building. And some research has pushed back against the idea that social media raises the risk for depression in teens . So just how healthy or unhealthy is social media?

Two experts from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Columbia Psychiatry share their insights into one crucial aspect of social media’s influence—its effect on the mental health of young people and adults. Deborah Glasofer , associate professor of psychology in psychiatry, conducts psychotherapy development research for adults with eating disorders and teaches about cognitive behavioral therapy. She is the co-author of the book Eating Disorders: What Everyone Needs to Know. Claude Mellins , Professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, studies wellbeing among college and graduate students, among other topics, and serves as program director of CopeColumbia, a peer support program for Columbia faculty and staff whose mental health has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. She co-led the SHIFT research study to reduce sexual violence among undergraduates. Both use social media.

What do we know about the mental health risks of social media use?

Mellins : Facebook and Instagram and other social media platforms are important sources of socialization and relationship-building for many young people. Although there are important benefits, social media can also provide platforms for bullying and exclusion, unrealistic expectations about body image and sources of popularity, normalization of risk-taking behaviors, and can be detrimental to mental health. Girls and young people who identify as sexual and gender minorities can be especially vulnerable as targets. Young people’s brains are still developing, and as individuals, young people are developing their own identities. What they see on social media can define what is expected in ways that is not accurate and that can be destructive to identity development and self-image. Adolescence is a time of risk-taking, which is both a strength and a vulnerability. Social media can exacerbate risks, as we have seen played out in the news. 

Although there are important benefits, social media can also provide platforms for bullying and exclusion, unrealistic expectations about body image and sources of popularity, normalization of risk-taking behaviors, and can be detrimental to mental health. – Claude Mellins

Glasofer : For those vulnerable to developing an eating disorder, social media may be especially unhelpful because it allows people to easily compare their appearance to their friends, to celebrities, even older images of themselves. Research tells us that how much someone engages with photo-related activities like posting and sharing photos on Facebook or Instagram is associated with less body acceptance and more obsessing about appearance. For adolescent girls in particular, the more time they spend on social media directly relates to how much they absorb the idea that being thin is ideal, are driven to try to become thin, and/or overly scrutinize their own bodies. Also, if someone is vulnerable to an eating disorder, they may be especially attracted to seeking out unhelpful information—which is all too easy to find on social media.

Are there any upsides to social media?

Mellins : For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests. During the pandemic, social media made it possible for people to connect in ways when in-person socialization was not possible.  Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience. Friends we couldn’t see in person were available online and allowed us important points of connection. On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.

Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. – Deborah Glasofer

Glasofer : Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative in-person influences. For those with a history of eating disorders, there are body-positive and recovery groups on social media. Some people find these groups to be supportive; for others, it’s more beneficial to move on and pursue other interests.

Is there a healthy way to be on social media?

Mellins : If you feel social media is a negative experience, you might need a break. Disengaging with social media permanently is more difficult­—especially for young people. These platforms are powerful tools for connecting and staying up-to-date with friends and family. Social events, too. If you’re not on social media then you’re reliant on your friends to reach out to you personally, which doesn’t always happen. It’s complicated.

Glasofer : When you find yourself feeling badly about yourself in relation to what other people are posting about themselves, then social media is not doing you any favors. If there is anything on social media that is negatively affecting your actions or your choices­—for example, if you’re starting to eat restrictively or exercise excessively—then it’s time to reassess. Parents should check-in with their kids about their lives on social media. In general, I recommend limiting social media— creating boundaries that are reasonable and work for you—so you can be present with people in your life. I also recommend social media vacations. It’s good to take the time to notice the difference between the virtual world and the real world.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Social Media Seen as Mostly Good for Democracy Across Many Nations, But U.S. is a Major Outlier

2. Views of social media and its impacts on society

Table of contents.

• Most do not think they can influence politics in their country
• The perceived impacts of the internet and social media on society
• Majorities view social media as a way to raise awareness among the public and elected officials
• Widespread smartphone ownership while very few do not own a mobile phone at all
• Most say they use social media sites
• Frequent posting about social or political issues on social media is uncommon
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A: Classifying democracies
• Appendix B: Negative Impact of the Internet and Social Media Index
• Appendix C: Political categorization
• Classifying parties as populist
• Classifying parties as left, right or center
• Appendix E: Country-specific examples of smartphones
• Appendix F: Country-specific examples of social media sites
• Pew Research Center’s Spring 2022 Global Attitudes Survey
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

When asked whether social media is a good or bad thing for democracy in their country, a median of 57% across 19 countries say that it is a good thing. In almost every country, close to half or more say this, with the sentiment most common in Singapore, where roughly three-quarters believe social media is a good thing for democracy in their country. However, in the Netherlands and France, about four-in-ten agree. And in the U.S., only around a third think social media is positive for democracy – the smallest share among all 19 countries surveyed.

In eight countries, those who believe that the political system in their country allows them to have an influence on politics are also more likely to say that social media is a good thing for democracy. This gap is most evident in Belgium, where 62% of those who feel their political system allows them to have a say in politics also say that social media is a good thing for democracy in their country, compared with 44% among those who say that their political system does not allow them much influence on politics.

Those who view the spread of false information online as a major threat to their country are less likely to say that social media is a good thing for democracy, compared with those who view the spread of misinformation online as either a minor threat or not a threat at all. This is most clearly observed in the Netherlands, where only four-in-ten (39%) among those who see the spread of false information online as a major threat say that social media has been a good thing for democracy in their country, as opposed to the nearly six-in-ten (57%) among those who do not consider the spread of misinformation online to be a threat who say the same. This pattern is evident in eight other countries as well.

Views also vary by age. Older adults in 12 countries are less likely to say that social media is a good thing for democracy in their country when compared to their younger counterparts. In Japan, France, Israel, Hungary, the UK and Australia, the gap between the youngest and oldest age groups is at least 20 percentage points and ranges as high as 41 points in Poland, where nearly nine-in-ten (87%) younger adults say that social media has been a good thing for democracy in the country and only 46% of adults over 50 say the same.

The publics surveyed believe the internet and social media are affecting societies. Across the six issues tested, few tend to say they see no changes due to increased connectivity – instead seeing things changing both positively and negatively – and often both at the same time. 

A median of 84% say technological connectivity has made people easier to manipulate with false information and rumors – the most among the six issues tested. Despite this, medians of 73% describe people being more informed about both current events in other countries and about events in their own country. Indeed, in most countries, those who think social media has made it easier to manipulate people with misinformation and rumors are also more likely to think that social media has made people more informed.

When it comes to politics, the internet and social media are generally seen as disruptive, with a median of 65% saying that people are now more divided in their political opinions. Some of this may be due to the sense – shared by a median of 44% across the 19 countries – that access to the internet and social media has led people to be less civil in the way they talk about politics. Despite this, slightly more people (a median of 45%) still say connectivity has made people more accepting of people from different ethnic groups, religions and races than say it has made people less accepting (22%) or had no effect (29%). 

There is widespread concern over misinformation – and a sense that people are more susceptible to manipulation

Previously reported results indicate that a median of 70% across the 19 countries surveyed believe that the spread of false information online is a major threat to their country. In places like Canada, Germany and Malaysia, more people name this as a threat than say the same of any of the other issues asked about. 

This sense of threat is related to the widespread belief that people today are now easier to manipulate with false information and rumors thanks to the internet and social media. Around half or more in every country surveyed shares this view. And in places like the Netherlands, Australia and the UK, around nine-in-ten see people as more manipulable.

In many places, younger people – who tend to be more likely to use social media (for more on usage, see Chapter 3 ) – are also more likely to say it makes people easier to manipulate with false information and rumors. For example, in South Korea, 90% of those under age 30 say social media makes people easier to manipulate, compared with 65% of those 50 and older. (Interestingly, U.S.-focused research has found older adults are more likely to share misinformation than younger ones.) People with more education are also often more likely than those with less education to say that social media has led to people being easier to manipulate.

In 2018, when Pew Research Center asked a similar question about whether access to mobile phones, the internet and social media has made people easier to manipulate with false information and rumors, the results were largely similar. Across the 11 emerging economies surveyed as part of that project , at least half in every country thought this was the case and in many places, around three-quarters or more saw this as an issue. Large shares in many places were also specifically concerned that people in their country might be manipulated by domestic politicians. For more on how the two surveys compare, see “ In advanced and emerging economies, similar views on how social media affects democracy and society .”

Spotlight on the U.S.: Attitudes and experiences with misinformation

Misinformation has long been seen as a source of concern for Americans. In 2016 , for example, in the wake of the U.S. presidential election, 64% of U.S. adults thought completely made-up news had caused a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current events. At the time, around a third felt that they often encountered political news online that was completely made up and another half said they often encountered news that was not fully accurate. Moreover, about a quarter (23%) said they had shared such stories – whether knowingly or not.

When asked in 2019 who was the cause of made-up news, Americans largely singled out two groups of people: political leaders (57%) and activists (53%). Fewer placed blame on journalists (36%), foreign actors (35%) or the public (26%). A large majority of Americans that year (82%) also described themselves as either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the potential impact of made-up news on the 2020 presidential election. People who followed political and election news more closely and those with higher levels of political knowledge also tended to be more concerned.

Among adult American Twitter users in 2021, in particular, there was widespread concern about misinformation: 53% said inaccurate or misleading information is a major problem on the platform and 33% reported seeing a lot of that type of content when using the site. 

As of 2021 , around half (48%) of Americans thought the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it meant losing freedom to access and publish content – a share that had increased somewhat substantially since 2018, when 39% felt the same.

Most say people are more informed about current events – foreign and domestic – thanks to social media and the internet

A majority in every country surveyed thinks that access to the internet and social media has made people in their country more informed about domestic current events. In Sweden, Japan, Greece and the Netherlands, around eight-in-ten or more share this view, while in Malaysia, a smaller majority (56%) says the same.

Younger adults tend to see social media making people more informed than older adults do. Older adults, for their part, don’t necessarily see the internet and social media making people less informed about what’s happening in their country; rather, they’re somewhat more likely to describe these platforms as having little effect on people’s information levels. In the case of the U.S., for example, 71% of adults under 30 say social media has made people more informed about current events in the U.S., compared with 60% of those ages 50 and older. But those ages 50 and older are about twice as likely to say social media has not had much impact on how informed people are compared with those under 30: 19% vs. 11%, respectively.

In seven of the surveyed countries, people with higher levels of education are more likely than those with lower levels to see social media informing the public on current events in their own country.

Majorities in every country also agree that the internet and social media are making people more informed about current events happening in other countries. The two questions are extremely highly correlated ( r = 0.94), meaning that in most places where people say social media is making people more informed about domestic events, they also say the same of international events. (See the topline for detailed results for both questions, by country.)

In the 2018 survey of emerging economies , results of a slightly different question also found that a majority in every country – and around seven-in-ten or more in most places – said people were more informed thanks to social media, the internet and smartphones, rather than less. 

In some countries, those who think social media has made it easier to manipulate people with misinformation and rumors are also more likely to think that social media has made people more informed. This finding, too, was similar in the 2018 11-country study of emerging economies: Generally speaking, individuals who are most attuned to the potential benefits technology can bring to the political domain are also the ones most anxious about the possible harms. 

Spotlight on the U.S.: Social media use and news consumption

In the U.S. , around half of adults say they either get news often (17%) or sometimes (33%) from social media. When it comes to where Americans regularly get news on social media, Facebook outpaces all other social media sites. Roughly a third of U.S. adults (31%) say they regularly get news from Facebook. While Twitter is only used by about three-in-ten U.S. adults (27%), about half of its users (53%) turn to the site to regularly get news there. And a quarter of U.S. adults regularly get news from YouTube, while smaller shares get news from Instagram (13%), TikTok (10%) or Reddit (8%). Notably, TikTok has seen rapid growth as a source of news among younger Americans in recent years.

On several social media sites asked about, adults under 30 make up the largest share of those who regularly get news on the site. For example, half or more of regular news consumers on Snapchat (67%), TikTok (52%) or Reddit (50%) are ages 18 to 29. 

While this survey finds that 64% of Americans think the public has become more informed thanks to social media, results of Center analyses do show that Americans who mainly got election and political information on social media during the 2020 election were less knowledgeable and less engaged than those who primarily got their news through other methods (like cable TV, print, etc.).

Majorities or pluralities tend to see social media leading to more political divisions

Around half or more in almost every country surveyed think social media has made people more divided in their political opinions. The U.S., South Korea and the Netherlands are particularly likely to hold this view. As a separate analysis shows, the former two also stand out for being the countries where people are most likely to report conflicts between people who support different political parties . While perceived political division in the Netherlands is somewhat lower, it, too, stands apart: Between 2021 and 2022, the share who said there were conflicts increased by 23 percentage points – among the highest year-on-year shifts evident in the survey.

More broadly, across each of the countries surveyed, people who see social division between people who support different political parties, are, in general, more likely to see social media leading people to be more divided in their political opinions.

In a number of countries, younger people are somewhat more likely to see social media enlarging political differences than older people. More educated people, too, often see social media exacerbating political divisions more than those with less education. 

Similarly, in the survey of 11 emerging economies conducted in 2018, results of a slightly different question indicated that around four-in-ten or more in every country – and a majority in most places – thought social media had made people more divided.

Publics diverge over whether social media has made people more accepting of differences

There is less consensus over what role social media has played when it comes to tolerance: A 19-country median of 45% say it has made people more accepting of people from different ethnic backgrounds, religions and races, while a median of 22% say it has made them less so, and 29% say that it has not had much impact either way.

South Korea, Singapore, Italy and Japan are the most likely to see social media making people more tolerant. On the flip side, the Netherlands and Hungary stand out as the two countries where a plurality says the internet and social media have made people less accepting of people with racial or religious differences. Most other societies are somewhat divided, as in the case of the U.S., where around a third of the public falls into each of the three groups.

Younger people are more likely than older ones in most countries to say that social media has increased tolerance. This is the case, for example, in Canada, where 54% of adults under 30 say social media has contributed to people being more accepting of people from different ethnic groups, religions and races, compared with a third of those ages 50 and older. In some places – and in Canada – older people are more likely to see social media leading to less tolerance, though in other places, older people are simply less likely to see much impact from the technology.

In most countries, people who see social media leading to more divisions between people with different political opinions are more likely to say social media has made people less accepting of those racially and religiously different from them than those who say social media is having no effect on political division. People who see more conflicts between partisans in their society are also more likely than those who see fewer divisions to place some of the blame on social media, describing it as making people less accepting of differences.  

Results of an analysis of the 11-country poll did find that people who used smartphones and social media were more likely to regularly interact with people from diverse backgrounds – though the question did not ask about acceptance , just about interactions. The publics in these emerging economies were also somewhat divided when it came to their opinions on how social media has led to people being more or less accepting of those with different viewpoints.

Mixed views on whether social media has made people discuss politics civilly

Across the countries surveyed, a median of 46% say access to the internet and social media has made people less civil when they talk about politics. This is more than the 23% who say it has made them more civil – though a median of 26% see little impact either way.

In the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia, a majority sees the internet and social media making people less civil. Roughly seven-in-ten Americans say this. Singapore stands out as the only country where around half see these technologies increasing civility. All other countries surveyed are somewhat divided.

People with higher levels of education tend to see less civility thanks to social media relative to those with lower levels of education.

In most places surveyed, those who think social media has made people more divided politically, compared with those who say it has had no impact on divisions, are also more likely to say social media has made people less civil in how they talk about politics.

Across advanced economies, people generally recognize social media as useful for bringing the public’s and elected officials’ attention to certain issues, for changing people’s minds and for influencing policy choices. A median of 77% across the 19 countries surveyed say social media is an effective way to raise public awareness about sociopolitical issues. Those in the UK are particularly optimistic about social media as a way of bringing public attention to a topic, with about nine-in-ten holding this belief. People in France and Belgium are the least convinced about social media’s role in raising public awareness, but majorities in both countries still say it’s effective for highlighting certain issues among the public.

Many also consider social media effective for changing people’s minds on social or political issues (65% median). Confidence in social media’s effect on changing people’s minds is strongest in South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Germans, Belgians, Israelis and French adults are more skeptical, with no more than about half seeing social media as effective for changing people’s minds on sociopolitical issues.

Views on social media as a way to bring the attention of elected officials to certain issues are similar. A median of 64% consider social media effective for directing elected officials’ attention to issues, and this view is especially prevalent in South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. People in Belgium, Hungary and France are less convinced.

Somewhat fewer consider social media effective for influencing policy decisions (61% median). Israelis are particularly doubtful of social media as a way for affecting policy change: A majority of Israelis say social media is an ineffective way of influencing policy decisions, and about half in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany agree. About a fifth in Poland also did not provide an answer.

An additional question was asked in the U.S. about social media’s role in creating sustained social movements; roughly seven-in-ten Americans say social media is effective for this. Younger Americans, as well as those with more education or higher incomes, are more likely than others to hold this view. Social media users and those who say social media has been generally good for U.S. democracy are also more likely to believe social media is effective at creating sustained social movements.

Age plays a role in how people in many of the 19 nations surveyed view social media’s role in public discourse. Those ages 18 to 29 are especially likely to see social media as effective for raising public awareness. For example, in France, 70% of those ages 18 to 29 see social media as an effective way of raising public awareness. Only 48% of those 50 and older share this view, a difference of 22 percentage points.

Similarly, younger adults are also more likely to consider social media an effective way for changing people’s minds on issues. The difference is greatest in Poland and Germany, where younger adults are 24 points more likely than their older counterparts to see social media this way. There are fewer differences between younger and older adults when it comes to social media’s effectiveness for directing elected officials’ attention and influencing policy decisions. Younger adults are also generally more likely to be social media users and provide answers to these questions.

Education and income are other demographic characteristics related to people’s view of social media as a way to influence public discourse. In 11 countries, those with incomes higher than the median income are more likely than those with lower incomes to consider social media effective for raising public awareness about sociopolitical issues. Those with more education are similarly more likely to consider social media effective for elevating sociopolitical issues in the public consciousness in eight countries. People with lower levels of education and income are somewhat less likely than others to provide answers to questions about social media’s effectiveness for influencing policies, changing minds and bringing attention to issues.

Social media usage is also connected to how people evaluate these platforms as a way to affect public discourse and policy choices. In nearly all countries, social media users are more likely than those who are not on social media to say social media is effective for raising public awareness, and social media users are also more likely to consider social media useful for changing people’s minds in 11 of 19 countries. The differences are greatest in Israel in both cases. Israeli social media users are 47 points more likely than non-users to say social media is effective for raising awareness and 38 points more likely to consider it effective for changing people’s minds on sociopolitical issues. Different views between social media users and non-users are less common when it comes to social media as an effective way for bringing elected officials’ attention to issues or influencing policy decisions. Social media users are also more likely than non-users to answer these questions.

Among social media users, those who are more active are more likely to consider social media an effective avenue for shaping people’s views and attention. Those who post about political or social issues at least sometimes on social media have a greater chance of seeing social media as effective for raising awareness for sociopolitical issues than those who post rarely or never in 16 countries. For example, in Spain, 84% of social media users who post sometimes or often see social media as an effective way to bring awareness to issues, compared to 71% of users who never or rarely post. Similarly, social media users who post more frequently are more likely to see social media as effective for changing minds in 13 countries, for influencing policy decisions in 15 countries, and bringing elected officials’ attention to issues in 12 nations.

People’s views of social media as a way to spread awareness or affect change are additionally related to how they see democracy. The beliefs that social media is effective for influencing policy decisions and for bringing issues to the attention of elected officials or the public are especially common among people who also believe they have a say in politics. For example, in Germany, 60% of people who say people like them have at least a fair amount of influence on politics also say social media is effective for affecting policy choices. In comparison, 43% of Germans who do not think they have a say in politics also think social media can influence policy decisions.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Global Tech & Cybersecurity
• International Political Values
• Internet Connectivity
• Misinformation
• Political Discourse
• Politics & Media
• Politics Online
• Smartphones
• Social Media
• Social Media & the News
• Trust, Facts & Democracy
• U.S. Democracy

More than 80% of Americans believe elected officials don’t care what people like them think

Support for democracy is strong in hong kong and taiwan, how people in 24 countries think democracy can improve, what can improve democracy, representative democracy remains a popular ideal, but people around the world are critical of how it’s working, most popular, report materials.

• Detailed tables: Internet, smartphone and social media use in advanced economies (2022)
• American Trends Panel Wave 105
• Spring 2022 Survey Data

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Evolving Free-Speech Battle Between Social Media and the Government

By Isaac Chotiner

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a ruling that restricted various government agencies from communicating with social-media companies. The plaintiffs, which include the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, argued that the federal government was coercing social-media companies into limiting speech on topics such as vaccine skepticism. The judge wrote, in a preliminary injunction, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.” The injunction prevented agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the F.B.I. from communicating with Facebook , Twitter, or other platforms about removing or censoring content. (The Biden Administration appealed the injunction and, on Friday, the Fifth Circuit paused it. A three-judge panel will soon decide whether it will be reinstated as the case proceeds.) Critics have expressed concern that such orders will limit the ability of the government to fight disinformation.

To better understand the issues at stake, I recently spoke by phone with Genevieve Lakier, a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School who focusses on issues of social media and free speech. (We spoke before Friday’s pause.) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why the ruling was such a radical departure from the way that courts generally handle these issues, how to apply concepts like free speech to government actors, and why some of the communication between the government and social-media companies was problematic.

In a very basic sense, what does this decision actually do?

Well, in practical terms, it prevents a huge swath of the executive branch of the federal government from essentially talking to social-media platforms about what they consider to be bad or harmful speech on the platforms.

There’s an injunction and then there’s an order, and both are important. The order is the justification for the injunction, but the injunction itself is what actually has effects on the world. And the injunction is incredibly broad. It says all of these defendants—and we’re talking about the President, the Surgeon General, the White House press secretary, the State Department, the F.B.I.—may not urge, encourage, pressure, or induce in any manner the companies to do something different than what they might otherwise do about harmful speech. This is incredibly broad language. It suggests, and I think is likely to be interpreted to mean, that, basically, if you’re a member of one of the agencies or if you’re named in this injunction, you just cannot speak to the platforms about harmful speech on the platform until, or unless, the injunction ends.

But one of the puzzling things about the injunction is that there are these very significant carve-outs. For example, my favorite is that the injunction says, basically, “On the other hand, you may communicate with the platforms about threats to public safety or security of the United States.” Now, of course, the defendants in the lawsuit would say, “That’s all we’ve been doing. When we talk to you, when we talk to the platforms about election misinformation or health misinformation, we are alerting them to threats to the safety and security of the United States.”

So, read one way, the injunction chills an enormous amount of speech. Read another way, it doesn’t really change anything at all. But, of course, when you get an injunction like this from a federal court, it’s better to be safe than sorry. I imagine that all of the agencies and government officials listed in the injunction are going to think, We’d better shut up.

And the reason that specific people, jobs, and agencies are listed in the injunction is because the plaintiffs say that these entities were communicating with social-media companies, correct?

Correct. And communicating in these coercive or harmful, unconstitutional ways. The presumption of the injunction is that if they’ve been doing it in the past, they’re probably going to keep doing it in the future. And let’s stop continuing violations of the First Amendment.

As someone who’s not an expert on this issue, I find the idea that you could tell the White House press secretary that he or she cannot get up at the White House podium and say that Twitter should take down COVID misinformation—

Does this injunction raise issues on two fronts: freedom of speech and separation of powers?

Technically, when the press secretary is operating as the press secretary, she’s not a First Amendment-rights holder. The First Amendment limits the government, constrains the government, but protects private people. And so when she’s a private citizen, she has all her ordinary-citizen rights. Government officials technically don’t have First Amendment rights.

That said, it’s absolutely true that, when thinking about the scope of the First Amendment, courts take very seriously the important democratic and expressive interests in government speech. And so government speakers don’t have First Amendment rights, but they have a lot of interests that courts consider. A First Amendment advocate would say that this injunction constrains and has negative effects on really important government speech interests.

More colloquially, I would just say the irony of this injunction is that in the name of freedom of speech it is chilling a hell of a lot of speech. That is how complicated these issues are. Government officials using their bully pulpit can have really powerful speech-oppressive effects. They can chill a lot of important speech. But one of the problems with the way the district court approaches the analysis is that it doesn’t seem to be taking into account the interest on the other side. Just as we think that the government can go too far, we also think it’s really important for the government to be able to speak.

And what about separation-of-powers issues? Or is that not relevant here?

I think the way that the First Amendment is interpreted in this area is an attempt to protect some separation of powers. Government actors may not have First Amendment rights, but they’re doing important business, and it’s important to give them a lot of freedom to do that business, including to do things like express opinions about what private citizens are doing or not doing. Courts generally recognize that government actors, legislators, and executive-branch officials are doing important business. The courts do not want to second-guess everything that they’re doing.

So what exactly does this order say was illegal?

The lawsuit was very ambitious. It claimed that government officials in a variety of positions violated the First Amendment by inducing or encouraging or incentivizing the platforms to take down protected speech. And by coercing or threatening them into taking down protected speech. And by collaborating with them to take down protected speech. These are the three prongs that you can use in a First Amendment case to show that the decision to take down speech that looks like it’s directly from a private actor is actually the responsibility of the government. The plaintiffs claimed all three. What’s interesting about that district-court order is that it agreed with all three. It says, Yeah, there was encouragement, there was coercion, and there was joint action or collaboration.

And what sort of examples are they providing? What would be an example of the meat of what the plaintiffs argued, and what the judge found to violate the First Amendment?

A huge range of activities—some that I find troubling and some that don’t seem to be troubling. Public statements by members of the White House or the executive branch expressing dissatisfaction with what the platforms are doing. For instance, President Biden’s famous statement that the platforms are killing people. Or the Surgeon General’s warning that there is a health crisis caused by misinformation, and his urging the platforms to do something about it. That’s one bucket.

There is another bucket in which the platforms were going to agencies like the C.D.C. to ask them for information about the COVID pandemic and the vaccine—what’s true and what’s false, or what’s good and what’s bad information—and then using that to inform their content-moderation rules.

Very different and much more troubling, I think, are these e-mails that they found in discovery between White House officials and the platforms in which the officials more or less demand that the platforms take down speech. There is one e-mail from someone in the White House who asked Twitter to remove a parody account that was linked to President Biden’s granddaughter, and said that he “cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately”—and within forty-five minutes, Twitter takes it down. That’s a very different thing than President Biden saying, “Hey, platforms, you’re doing a bad job with COVID misinformation.”

The second bucket seems full of the normal give-and-take you’d expect between the government and private actors in a democratic society, right?

Yeah. Threats and government coercion on private platforms seem the most troubling from a First Amendment perspective. And traditionally that is the kind of behavior that these cases have been most worried about.

This is not the first case to make claims of this kind. This is actually one of dozens of cases that have been filed in federal court over the last years alleging that the Biden Administration or members of the government had put pressure on or encouraged platforms to take down vaccine-skeptical speech and speech about election misinformation. What is unusual about this case is the way that the district court responded to these claims. Before this case, courts had, for the most part, thrown these cases out. I think this was largely because they thought that there was insufficient evidence of coercion, and coercion is what we’re mostly worried about. They have found that this kind of behavior only violates the First Amendment if there is some kind of explicit threat, such as “If you don’t do X, we will do Y,” or if the government actors have been directly involved in the decision to take down the speech.

In this case, the court rejects that and has a much broader test, where it says, basically, that government officials violate the First Amendment if they significantly encourage the platforms to act. And that may mean just putting pressure on them through rhetoric or through e-mails on multiple occasions—there’s a campaign of pressure, and that’s enough to violate the First Amendment. I cannot stress enough how significant a departure that is from the way courts have looked at the issue before.

So, in this case, you’re saying that the underlying behavior may constitute something bad that the Biden Administration did, that voters should know about it and judge them on it, but that it doesn’t rise to the level of being a First Amendment issue?

Yes. I think that this opinion goes too far. It’s insufficiently attentive to the interests on the other side. But I think the prior cases have been too stingy. They’ve been too unwilling to find a problem—they don’t want to get involved because of this concern with separation of powers.

The platforms are incredibly powerful speech regulators. We have largely handed over control of the digital public sphere to these private companies. I think there is this recognition that when the government criticizes the platforms or puts pressure on the platforms to change their policies, that’s some form of political or democratic oversight, a way to promote public welfare. And those kinds of democratic and public-welfare concerns are pretty significant. The courts have wanted to give the government a lot of room to move.

But you think that, in the past, the courts have been too willing to give the government space? How could they develop a better approach?

Yeah. So, for example, the e-mails that are identified in this complaint—I think that’s the kind of pressure that is inappropriate for government actors in a democracy to be employing against private-speech platforms. I’m not at all convinced that, if this had come up in a different court, those would have been found to be a violation of the First Amendment. But there need to be some rules of the road.

On the one hand, I was suggesting that there are important democratic interests in not having too broad a rule. But, on the other hand, I think part of what’s going on here—part of what the facts that we see in this complaint are revealing—is that, in the past, we’ve thought about this kind of government pressure on private platforms, which is sometimes called jawboning, as episodic. There’s a local sheriff or there’s an agency head who doesn’t like a particular policy, and they put pressure on the television station, or the local bookseller, to do something about it. Today, what we’re seeing is that there’s just this pervasive, increasingly bureaucratized communication between the government and the platforms. The digital public theatre has fewer gatekeepers; journalists are not playing the role of leading and determining the news that is fit to print or not fit to print. And so there’s a lot of stuff, for good or for ill, that is circulating in public. You can understand why government officials and expert agencies want to be playing a more significant role in informing, influencing, and persuading the platforms to operate one way or the other. But it does raise the possibility of abuse, and I’m worried about that.

That was a fascinating response, but you didn’t totally answer the question. How should a court step in here without going too far?

The traditional approach that courts have taken, until now, has been to say that there’s only going to be a First Amendment violation if the coercion, encouragement, or collaboration is so strong that, essentially, the platform had no choice but to act. It had no alternatives; there was no private discretion. Because then we can say, Oh, yes, it was the government actor, not the platform, that ultimately was responsible for the decision.

I think that that is too restrictive a standard. Platforms are vulnerable to pressure from the government that’s a lot less severe. They’re in the business of making money by disseminating a lot of speech. They don’t particularly care about any particular tweet or post or speech act. And their economic incentives will often mean that they want to curry favor with the government and with advertisers by being able to continue to circulate a lot of speech. If that means that they have to break some eggs, that they have to suppress particular kinds of posts or tweets, they will do that. It’s economically rational for them to do so.

The challenge for courts is to develop rules of the road for how government officials can interact with platforms. It has to be the case that some forms of communication are protected, constitutionally O.K., and even democratically good. I want expert agencies such as the C.D.C. to be able to communicate to the platforms. And I want that kind of expert information to be constitutionally unproblematic to deliver. On the other hand, I don’t think that White House officials should be writing to platforms and saying, “Hey, take this down immediately.”

I never thought about threatening companies as a free-speech issue that courts would get involved with. Let me give you an example. If you had told me four years ago that the White House press secretary had got up and said, “I have a message from President Trump. If CNN airs one more criticism of me, I am going to try and block its next merger,” I would’ve imagined that there would be a lot of outrage about that. What I could not have imagined was a judge releasing an injunction saying that people who worked for President Trump were not allowed to pass on the President’s message from the White House podium. It would be an issue for voters to decide. Or, I suppose, CNN, during the merger decision, could raise the issue and say, “See, we didn’t get fair treatment because of what President Trump said,” and courts could take that into account. But the idea of blocking the White House press secretary from saying anything seems inconceivable to me.

I’ll say two things in response. One is that there is a history of this kind of First Amendment litigation, but it’s usually about private speech. We might think that public speech has a different status because there is more political accountability. I don’t know. I find this question really tricky, because I think that the easiest cases from a First Amendment perspective, and the easiest reason for courts to get involved, is when the communication is secret, because there isn’t political accountability.

You mentioned the White House press secretary saying something in public. O.K., that’s one thing. But what about if she says it in private? We might think, Well, then the platforms are going to complain. But often regulated parties do not want to say that they have been coerced by the government into doing something against their interests, or that they were threatened. There’s often a conspiracy of silence.

In those cases, it doesn’t seem to me as if there’s democratic accountability. But, even when it is public, we’ve seen over the past year that government officials are writing letters to the platforms: public letters criticizing them, asking for information, badgering them, pestering them about their content-moderation policies. And we might think, Sure, people know that that’s happening. Maybe the government officials will face political accountability if it’s no good. But we might worry that, even then, if the behavior is sufficiently serious, if it’s repeated, it might give the officials too much power to shape the content-moderation policies of the platforms. From a First Amendment perspective, I don’t know why that’s off the table.

Now, from a practical perspective, you’re absolutely right. Courts have not wanted to get involved. But that’s really worrying. I think this desire to just let the political branches work it out has meant that, certainly with the social-media platforms, it’s been like the Wild West. There are no rules of the road. We have no idea what’s O.K. or not for someone in the White House to e-mail to a platform. One of the benefits of the order and the injunction is that it’s opening up this debate about what’s O.K. and what’s not. It might be the case that the way to establish rules of the road will not be through First Amendment-case litigation. Maybe we need Congress to step in and write the rules, or there needs to be some kind of agency self-regulation. But I think it’s all going to have to ultimately be viewed through a First Amendment lens. This order and injunction go way too far, but I think the case is at least useful in starting a debate. Because up until now we’ve been stuck in this arena where there are important free-speech values that are at stake and no one is really doing much to protect them. ♦

More New Yorker Conversations

Naomi Klein sees uncanny doubles in our politics .

Olivia Rodrigo considers the meanings of “Guts.”

Isabel Allende’s vision of history .

Julia Fox didn’t want to be famous, but she knew she would be .

John Waters is ready for his Hollywood closeup .

Patrick Stewart boldly goes there .

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Burkhard Bilger

By Adam Gopnik

By Eric Lach

By Jonathan Blitzer

The Two Sides of Free Speech in Social Media

Social media is a powerful tool of communication. It allows everyone from all sides of the platform to express themselves. Generally speaking, this is a good way to make the freedom of speech and information accessible to all. However, this perspective only works under the light of positive social media use. In social media, free speech is for all, which means every perspective from both positive and negative side is allowed to have a voice.

When you are on a social media platform, you have the choice to become anonymous or not. Becoming anonymous generally means you will most likely not be held accountable of your actions online. This means that anonymous users online tend to express critical opinions to the public as they technically have no liability in case their publicized opinion goes under the judgment of the public. This is the opposite of becoming an identified social media user. If you publicize your identity through your social media account, you become accountable for all your actions online. Your identity can be labeled by the public based on your actions online and in real life—this comes in the form of online praises, critiques, and hate.

Free speech is a double-edged sword to the public. Both identified and anonymous users share the freedom of speech when they express themselves online. Both users may express negative opinions online and it would still be considered as an act of exercising the freedom of speech. Positive opinions affect readers positively, while negative opinions do the opposite.

Reading an opinion online may change a reader's view about a certain topic because opinions can bring up information that may be unknown by the time the reader decides what their view is. Changing opinions when presented with new information should be a normal act to all people, especially when the new information is true.

The only problem with changing views is that the information from an online opinion may not be fully credible. For example, I can post information online and state that it is true, even if it's not. Everyone can do this due to free speech, which means there can be a huge number of perspectives deceived by misleading information online. Changing your opinion because you believe in new information which turns out to be wrong makes your perspective a victim of misleading information. 

The misuse of free speech is blatant online. Most of its victims are those who cannot fact-check information that they read and potentially believe online. Free speech and anonymity are the double-edged swords of online information. Free speech was created to encourage people in expressing their opinions online without the fear of receiving unjust consequences. The goal of free speech has been achieved, but it has also created an opportunity for those who want to spread misinformation without experiencing consequences. 

View the discussion thread.

C 2019 Voices of Youth. All Rights Reserved. 

Essay on Social Media for School Students and Children

500+ words essay on social media.

Social media is a tool that is becoming quite popular these days because of its user-friendly features. Social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and more are giving people a chance to connect with each other across distances. In other words, the whole world is at our fingertips all thanks to social media. The youth is especially one of the most dominant users of social media. All this makes you wonder that something so powerful and with such a massive reach cannot be all good. Like how there are always two sides to a coin, the same goes for social media. Subsequently, different people have different opinions on this debatable topic. So, in this essay on Social Media, we will see the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

Advantages of Social Media

When we look at the positive aspect of social media, we find numerous advantages. The most important being a great device for education . All the information one requires is just a click away. Students can educate themselves on various topics using social media.

Moreover, live lectures are now possible because of social media. You can attend a lecture happening in America while sitting in India.

Furthermore, as more and more people are distancing themselves from newspapers, they are depending on social media for news. You are always updated on the latest happenings of the world through it. A person becomes more socially aware of the issues of the world.

In addition, it strengthens bonds with your loved ones. Distance is not a barrier anymore because of social media. For instance, you can easily communicate with your friends and relatives overseas.

Most importantly, it also provides a great platform for young budding artists to showcase their talent for free. You can get great opportunities for employment through social media too.

Another advantage definitely benefits companies who wish to promote their brands. Social media has become a hub for advertising and offers you great opportunities for connecting with the customer.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Disadvantages of Social Media

Despite having such unique advantages, social media is considered to be one of the most harmful elements of society. If the use of social media is not monitored, it can lead to grave consequences.

Thus, the sharing on social media especially by children must be monitored at all times. Next up is the addition of social media which is quite common amongst the youth.

This addiction hampers with the academic performance of a student as they waste their time on social media instead of studying. Social media also creates communal rifts. Fake news is spread with the use of it, which poisons the mind of peace-loving citizens.

In short, surely social media has both advantages and disadvantages. But, it all depends on the user at the end. The youth must particularly create a balance between their academic performances, physical activities, and social media. Excess use of anything is harmful and the same thing applies to social media. Therefore, we must strive to live a satisfying life with the right balance.

FAQs on Social Media

Q.1 Is social media beneficial? If yes, then how?

A.1 Social media is quite beneficial. Social Media offers information, news, educational material, a platform for talented youth and brands.

Q.2 What is a disadvantage of Social Media?

A.2 Social media invades your privacy. It makes you addicted and causes health problems. It also results in cyberbullying and scams as well as communal hatred.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context
• Harvard Squared
• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

| 5.23.2024

Maria A. Ressa, LL.D. ’24, Harvard Commencement Address 2024

A warning about social media, the erosion of trust, and threats to democracy.

Return to main article:

Maria Ressa Commencement Address

Thank you, President Garber. And thank you former President Gay, who called me last year to extend this offer.

It’s an incredible honor to address the distinguished Harvard faculty, the mysterious Harvard Corporation, and the loving friends and family who have traveled far and close to be here with you today. But wait. Most of all, despite everything, because you worked really hard, I am so thrilled to congratulate the battle tested graduates of the Class of 2024.

This was a harder speech to write than the Nobel lecture, you know. Because, since 2021, the world has gotten so much worse.

We live in a dystopian science fiction world where everything can change in the blink of an eye. When you have been forced to turn crisis into opportunity. No one knows this better than the class of 2024. A pandemic meant no high school graduation. Your first year here in lockdown, wearing masks, afraid of contact, you laid out all of the problems, the existential problems we face today. We were pushed online in the virtual world. And that made things worse because the accelerant to conflict and violence, to us against them, to wars that have killed tens of thousands, sparking historic campus protests, that accelerant is technology.

It turned what once used to be our civilized Harvard, thinking slow, public discussions, into what’s become a gladiator’s battle to the death. I know this firsthand. The Philippines, America’s former colony, 110 million people, was social media’s petri dish. For a crucial six years, Filipinos spent the most time online and on social media globally. And we became the testing ground for these American tech companies, their platform’s designs, exploited by power and money in information warfare. It became worse when Tik Tok joined the fray. If the tactics worked on us, it was deployed for you. That’s what happened in 2016 when 126 million Americans were targeted by Russian disinformation. And on January 6, in the violence on Capitol Hill, when Silicon Valley’s sins came home to roost.

Because I accepted your invitation to be here today, I was attacked online and called antisemitic by power and money, because they want power and money. While the other side was already attacking me because I had been on stage with Hillary Clinton. Hard to win, right? But I’d already survived Information Operations from my own government: free speech, used to pound you to silence. Ninety hate messages per hour in 2016. That was eight years ago. Fed me death threats for breakfast. They attacked the way I looked. The way I sound. They dehumanized me. But you know, the funniest thing, because when you’re the target, you just have to laugh, is that I was supposedly both CIA and communist. None of these were true. But the end goal, please know this, is chaos. Break down trust. If you don’t have the right information, you can’t act. That’s partly the reason why journalists are on the front lines. The meta narrative, disinformation networks seeded against us—and this is globally—was “journalist equals criminal.” Then the bottom up attacks in the Philippines against us began on social media. That was followed a year later by the weaponization of the law. In 2019, I was arrested twice in about a month, posted bail eight times in about three months. I thought I was going to have to do a workflow for arrests. But before it all ended, I had 10 arrest warrants. Rappler and I paid more in bail and bonds than our dictator’s wife, Imelda Marcos—you remember her shoes? She was convicted for corruption. But I did nothing wrong, except to do my job, to report the facts. To hold power to account. For this, I had to be okay with spending the rest of my life in jail. At one point it was more than a century in jail that I faced. To be here today, I had to ask for permission to travel from our Supreme Court. Anyone else out here on bail? Just me? It taught me a valuable lesson.

I loved the speeches of the students today. They were incredible. Because these times will hopefully teach you the same lesson I learned. You don’t know who you are until you’re tested, until you fight for what you believe in. Because that defines who you are. But you’re Harvard. You better get your facts right. Because now, you are being tested. The chilling effect means that many are choosing to stay silent because there are consequences to speaking out. I’m shocked at the fear and anger, the paranoia splitting open the major fracture lines of society. The inability to listen, what happened to us in the Philippines. It’s here. The campus protests are testing everyone in America. Protests are healthy. They shouldn’t be violent. Protests give voice. They shouldn’t be silenced.

But you live in complicated, complex times, where I think administrators and students also face an unacknowledged danger: technology, making everything faster, meaner, more polarized, with insidious Information Operations online that are dividing generations. Rappler will be documenting this and publishing in the next couple of weeks. Maybe Rappler’s experience can help you. After all, we were in Hell. And now we’re in Purgatory, right? It can get better. And here’s three ways we’ve learned right?

One, choose your best self.

Two, turn crisis into opportunity. And

Three—it’s wonderful to have heard this several times from the stage today—three, be vulnerable.

One, choose your best self. Set and stay focused on your goals, but know the values you live by. How important is power? How much money will make you happy? Because the only thing you can control in the world is you. Too often, we let ourselves off the hook, refusing to look at our own difficult or ugly truths. We rationalize bad behavior. Remember that character is created in the sum of all the little choices we make. If you’re not clear about your values, you may wake up one day and realize, you don’t like the person you’ve become. So choose your best self.

You’re standing on the rubble of the world that was. Recognize it. I said this in the Nobel lecture: an atom bomb exploded in our information ecosystem, because social media turned our world upside down, spreading lies faster than facts, while amplifying fear and anger, fueling hatred, by design, for profit. Whether it’s the eye of social media or generative AI, we don’t have integrity of information. We don’t have integrity of facts. And here’s three sentences I’ve said over and over. Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without these three, we have no shared reality, no rule of law, no democracy, we can’t begin to solve existential problems like climate change. This outrage economy, built on our data, micro targeting us, transformed our world, rewarding the worst of humanity. Online violence is real world violence. And as you’ve pointed out, people are dying from genocide in Myanmar, fueled by Facebook, according to the UN and Meta itself, to Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, Armenia, Gaza.

The challenge, the challenge today is whether our international rules-based-order still works. Does it? The challenge is justice core to our humanity. Too many powerful people are getting away with impunity, from countries to companies. And it is dividing us in ways that are literally destroying us, destroying democracy, destroying trust. In Cambridge Common, just on the other side of that gate, there’s a marker to American patriot William Dawes, who like his more famous friend Paul Revere rode through here sounding the alarm. The British are coming. Well, today’s equivalent, an alarm that’s made me feel like Cassandra and Sisyphus combined, because I feel like I’ve been shouting since 2016 when I watched our institutions crumble quickly in the Philippines, and I will say it now: the fascists are coming.

In 2023, the global democracy index fell to its lowest level ever. Today, 71 percent of the world lives under autocratic rule. We are electing illiberal leaders, democratically. And once in power, these autocrats not only crush institutions in their countries, but they form alliances and create Kleptocracy, Inc. This is your challenge. It is our challenge. And Harvard played a role in getting us here. Seven years ago, Mark Zuckerberg stood at this podium, finally got his degree. And said that his life’s purpose was to connect the whole world. “Move fast, break things,” Facebook said. Well, it broke democracy. In my book, How to Stand Up to a Dictator , we were fighting two, I mean, two, not just Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, he’s one man who crushed institutions. But even more powerful was Mark Zuckerberg because he, along with tech bros, are controlling the world. Okay. I will shut up. Enough, right? Because let me bring it to you. The battle to regain trust begins now. With all of you. Harvard says it educates the future leaders of the world. Well, if you future leaders don’t fight for democracy right now, there will be little left for you to lead.

How do you do this? And this leads to Two. Turn crisis into opportunity. I think you’ve lived through this, except the crisis is here to stay. In Rappler, my co founders, and one of them is here, Glenda Gloria, who was a Nieman Fellow from 2018. We learned to embrace the worst scenarios we could imagine. And this happened during our darkest times. Then we work flowed what our company would do. We drilled our team, and we prepared for the worst. We also learned, strangely, to become punching bags, because we didn’t want to tear down our judiciary. We didn’t want to tear down our government. We knew how potent fear is. And we tried to step in. I mean, at some point, you get angry when silence is consent. But you understand. Well, I did have good news. Remember, we put out all of our worst case scenarios. And the reality we lived through was so much better than we could have imagined. Hell, Purgatory, right? It didn’t mean we weren’t afraid. We just made a pact among the four co-founders of Rappler that only one of us could be afraid at any single time. We rotated the fear. But now, for you, for us, the corruption of our information ecosystem is about to get worse. Because of deep fakes, you can’t trust your eyes and ears. Because of chatbots, you can’t trust that the person you’re communicating with is even human. After Elon Musk bought Twitter, he fired its trust and safety team. Meta and Google also cut some of their staff. So as half the world goes to the polls, goes to vote this year, there will be fewer safety measures in place to protect us. Now, big tech is choking traffic to news sites, which means you will get less news in your feeds. How do you know what’s real? How do you know what’s fact when your emotions are what’s manipulated, when our biology is hacked? Instead of the facts, the “enshittification” of the internet is in full bloom, more trash, more propaganda, more information operations that push our emotional buttons. Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo deleted X last year, calling it a human sewer. We will have to struggle harder, for agency, for independent thought. And it’s not just the tech companies that abdicated responsibility for protecting us. It’s also democratic governments like the United States. Tech is the least regulated industry around the world. That’s why the U.S. needs to reform or revoke section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

We need to stop the impunity. We also need to acknowledge our crisis of faith. I’ve always believed in the goodness of human nature. But that has never been tested as much as it is today. When the incentive structure of the technology that connects us rewards the bad, eliminates the best of who we can be. So, we need to restore our faith in humanity, and that starts with compassion. There’s a word that goes beyond empathy in South Africa. I love this word. Ubuntu: I am, because we are. It’s a deeper faith in another person. It’s deeper than stepping in someone else’s shoes. But in order to get there, to get to Ubuntu, we have to lower our shields.

Which leads us to Three. Be vulnerable. You’ve accomplished a lot to be here today. You might think being vulnerable is weak. And it is hard to trust. But in every relationship, in every negotiation, in order to move forward and accomplish anything meaningful, someone lowers their shield first, brings down their ego, their defense mechanism; then others follow. Let that person be you. Because when you’re vulnerable, you create the strongest bonds. You restore trust, and the ability to find creative solutions to intractable problems. You become resilient, and enable the most inspiring possibilities. So, choose your best self. Turn crisis into opportunity. Be vulnerable. This is it. This time matters. What you do matters. The war isn’t just happening in Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine. It isn’t just out there. It’s in your pocket. Each of us is fighting our own battles for facts, for integrity, because the dictator-to-be can zoom in and target each of us. So let me end by reminding you: we’re standing on the rubble of the world that was. And we—you—must have the courage, the foresight, to imagine and create the world as it should be: more compassionate, more equal, more sustainable. Your Harvard education gives you the tools. Make it a world that is safe from fascists and tyrants. Alone, no matter how much of a superstar you are, you will accomplish very little. We will accomplish very little alone. This is about what we can do together, to find what binds us together. Our world on fire needs you. So, Class of 2024, welcome to the battlefield. Join us.

You might also like

Dename Winthrop?

Harvard’s process for considering denaming requests is tested for the first time.

When Harvard Should—And Shouldn’t—Speak

A final report from the faculty working group on institutional neutrality

Using the Law for Good

2024 Radcliffe Medalist Sonia Sotomayor on civic engagement and optimism

Most popular

Michelle Yeoh’s Three Tips for Success

Oscar-winning actress offers advice in Harvard Law School Class Day address.

AWOL from Academics

Behind students' increasing pull toward extracurriculars

Harvard Confers Six Honorary Degrees

Nobel laureate Maria Ressa, conductor Gustavo Dudamel, President emeritus Larry Bacow among those recognized

More to explore

Bernini’s Model Masterpieces at the Harvard Art Museums

Thirteen sculptures from Gian Lorenzo Bernini at Harvard Art Museums.

Private Equity in Medicine and the Quality of Care

Hundreds of U.S. hospitals are owned by private equity firms—does monetizing medicine affect the quality of care?

John Harvard's Journal

Sasha the Harvard Police Dog

Sasha, the police dog of Harvard University

2 Minute Speech On The Impact Of Social Media On Youth In English

Good morning everyone present here, today I am going to give a speech on the impact of social media on youth. Social media plays a significant role in everyone’s life today, particularly for today’s kids. They are affected both favorably and unfavorably by it. On social networking platforms, making friends is simpler. Technology has altered how friends are made in general. It enables young people to establish friends anywhere in the world and communicate with them anytime and for as long as they like. Even video chatting is now cost-free. A social media platform like Facebook has made it possible to instantly connect with long-lost pals. Indeed, extroverts, introverts, students, penpals, and all sociable teenagers have benefited from social media.

Social networking sites not only allow everyone to get in touch with old friends, but it also helps them develop a new network of friends and other contacts. Friendship teaches young people empathy, a feeling crucial to their development into adults. After school, socializing also help kids unwind mentally and supports them in overcoming challenges.

Social media, on the other hand, can harm young people as well. These sites regularly receive numerous hours of youth time from them in the form of photographs, post updates, and map updates. It makes them simple to locate and can let criminals carry out heinous acts of violence including murder, kidnapping, and stalking. Unacceptable content sharing and privacy breaches can result from an irresponsible activity. The correct use of social media and the internet requires the implementation of serious protection and education. Thank you.

Related Posts:

• Crabbed Age and Youth Summary by William Shakespeare
• Howl Poem By Allen Ginsberg Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
• Of Marriage and Single Life by Francis Bacon | Summary & Analysis
• Of Friendship Essay | Summary by Francis Bacon
• An African Elegy by Ben Okri Poem Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
• Michael Poem by William Wordsworth Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English

Your child’s brain is developing rapidly, making them more susceptible to the harms of social media. And though they might put on a brave face, they could be hurting underneath. It’s time to unmask the harms of social media.

Up to 95% of youth ages 13–17 report using a social media platform opens in a new tab , with more than a third saying they use social media “almost constantly.”

There is growing concern for children and teens using social media. Social media can be incredibly harmful for youth. Kids need less screen time for healthy growth and development. We can work together to establish social media boundaries, model healthy social media use, and teach children how to use it safely.

The harms of social media

Teens who spent more than 3 hours per day on social media faced double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes.

Nearly half of teens ages 13 to 17 said using social media makes them feel worse .

Almost 60% of teenage girls say they’ve been contacted by a stranger on social media platforms in ways that make them feel uncomfortable.

According to a survey of 8th and 10th graders, the average time spent on social media is 3.5 hours per day and almost 15% (1 in 7) spends 7+ hours per day on social media .

More than 60% of teens are regularly exposed to hate-based content .

Excessive social media use has been linked to sleep problems, attention problems, and feelings of exclusion among teenagers.

In a review of 36 studies, a consistent relationship was found between cyberbullying on social media and depression among children of all ages.

In a national survey of girls ages 11 to 15, one-third or more say they feel “addicted” to a social media platform .

More than half of teens report that it would be hard to give up social media .

Share this message with others

What do Utah parents think about social media?

It can be scary and intimidating raising kids in a world filled with technology—predators, inappropriate content, bullying, and a distorted reality are just some of the concerns you might have. But you’re not alone! We asked Utah parents what they thought about social media, its effects on their children, and what they’re doing to help protect their kids.

• 88% believe social media has a detrimental impact on children and youth.
• 63% were concerned about social media impacting their child’s mental health.
• 60% were concerned about social media impacting their child’s body image.
• 94% enforce boundaries with their children’s social media usage, like enforcing time limits, content restrictions, and setting age limits.
• 84% encourage their children to unplug from social media and participate in other activities.

What can you do to protect your child?

Reconsider allowing your child to have social media and encourage them to wait to use it until they are an adult.

Governor Spencer J. Cox

• Create a family media plan. Agreed-upon expectations can help establish healthy technology boundaries at home – including social media use. A family media plan opens in a new tab can promote open family discussion and rules about media use and include topics such as balancing screen/online time, content boundaries, and not disclosing personal information.
• Create tech-free zones and encourage children to foster in-person relationships. Electronics can be a distraction after bedtime and can interfere with sleep. Consider restricting the use of phones, tablets, and computers for at least 1 hour before bedtime and through the night. Keep family mealtimes and in-person gatherings device-free to build social bonds and engage in a two-way conversation. Help your child develop social skills and nurture his or her in-person relationships by encouraging unstructured and offline connections with others and making unplugged interactions a daily priority. Learn more from the American Academy of Pediatrics opens in a new tab .
• Model responsible social media behavior. Children often learn behaviors and habits from what they see around them. Parents can set a good example of what responsible and healthy social media use looks like by limiting their own use and being mindful of social media habits.
• Teach kids about technology and empower them to be responsible online participants at the appropriate age. Discuss with children the risks of social media as well as the importance of respecting privacy and protecting personal information in age-appropriate ways. Have conversations with children about who they are connecting with, their privacy settings, their online experiences, and how they are spending their time online. Encourage them to seek help should they need it. Learn more from the American Academy of Pediatrics Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health opens in a new tab and American Psychological Association Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence opens in a new tab .
• Report cyberbullying and online abuse and exploitation. Talk to your child about cyberbullying and what to do if they are being harassed through email, text message, online games, or social media. Make sure they understand the dangers of being contacted by an adult online, especially if they are being asked to share private images or perform intimate or sexual acts.
• Work with other parents to help establish shared norms and practices and to support programs and policies around healthy social media use. Despite what your kids may say, you’re not the only parent who won’t let their children have social media or who sets family rules about phones and technology.

In 2023, the Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill 152 opens in a new tab   and opens in a new tab House Bill 311 , enacting the Utah Social Media Regulation Acts. Learn more about the laws here opens in a new tab .

Research & resources

• Gabb:  What is Sextortion? Everything You Need to Know  
• Gabb Study: When Teens Take a Break from Social Media opens in a new tab
• The Common Sense Census:  Media Use by Tweens and Teens, 2021 opens in a new tab
• U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: opens in a new tab Social Media and Youth Mental Health
• The Atlantic:  All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed
• American Academy of Pediatrics: National Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health opens in a new tab
• American Academy of Pediatrics: Media and Young Minds opens in a new tab
• American Psychological Association: Health advisory on social media use in adolescence opens in a new tab
• University of Utah Health: The impact of social media on teens’ mental health opens in a new tab and Tips for healthy social media use: Parents and teens opens in a new tab
• PBS Utah: Social media and youth mental health opens in a new tab
• Teen Mental Health Is Plummeting, and Social Media is a Major Contributing Cause opens in a new tab
• Social media and mental health opens in a new tab
• U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation opens in a new tab
• Haidt, J., & Twenge, J. (ongoing). Adolescent mood disorders since 2010: A collaborative review. opens in a new tab Unpublished manuscript, New York University.

View all educational and campaign materials

If you or someone you know is considering suicide

Tell us about your experience with harms to minors from engaging with social media platforms.

Presenting social harms: a parent presentation

How does social media affect sleep?

share this!

May 29, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Research suggests leaders' social media posts are taken just as seriously as formal statements

by Peter Dizikes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Over 180 world leaders maintain social media accounts, and some of them issue policy warnings to rivals and the public on these platforms rather than relying on traditional government statements. How seriously do people take such social media postings?

A new study suggests the general public and policymakers alike take leaders' social media posts just as seriously as they take formal government statements. The research, by MIT political scientists , deploys novel surveys of both the public and experienced foreign policy specialists.

"What we find, which is really surprising, across both expert audiences and public audiences, is that Tweets are not necessarily seen as this form of cheap talk," says Erik Lin-Greenberg, an MIT faculty member and co-author of a new paper detailing the results. "They're viewed as the same type of signal as that being offered through more formal and traditional communications."

The findings suggest that people have become so fully acclimatized to social media that they regard the medium as a vehicle for messages that have just as much credibility as those generated through the old-school method, in which official statements are released in formal language on official government documents.

"One clue that sheds some light on our unexpected findings is that a slight majority of our survey respondents who read a tweet identified what they read as a White House press release," says Benjamin Norwood Harris, an MIT doctoral candidate and co-author of the paper. "Respondents really seemed to believe that Tweets were just another way presidents communicate in their official capacity."

The paper, "Cheap Tweets?: Crisis Signaling in the Age of Twitter," appears in the June issue of International Studies Quarterly . Greenberg is the Leo Marx Career Development Assistant Professor of the History and Culture of Science and Technology at MIT; Harris is a Ph.D. candidate in MIT's Department of Political Science who specializes in security studies and international relations.

The study fits into a larger body of political science research in the area of "crisis signaling"—the way words and actions in international relations are interpreted, which is often critical to diplomacy. However, when it comes to the use of social media, "There's been very little research that looks at the credibility of public signals," Lin-Greenberg notes.

The research consisted of a multilayered set of surveys, conducted in 2021. Using the survey platform Lucid, the scholars surveyed 977 members of the general public about a hypothetical confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, using facsimiles of messages on Twitter (now known as X) and formal White House statements that might have been sent by U.S. President Joe Biden during such a scenario. Separately, the scholars also recruited foreign policy experts from the U.S., India, and Singapore, which all have active English-language think tank spheres, to take the same survey.

Asked to rate the credibility of Tweets and official statements on a five-point scale, the public rated official press releases at 3.30 and Tweets at 3.22. The policy experts gave a 3.10 rating to the official statement, and a 3.11 rating to the Tweets.

"No matter how we cut the data, we just don't see much difference in how respondents rated Tweets versus official statements," Harris says. "Even when we vary the formality of the tweet language—including things like all caps and lots of exclamation points—we don't find an effect."

A follow-up layer of the survey then asked respondents about a related hypothetical conflict between the U.S. and Iran in 2026, with facsimile Tweets and White House statements attributed to both Biden and former president Donald Trump, given that either could be president then. The aim was to see if different leaders influenced perceptions of the two forms of statements.

But in this instance, the public and policy experts regarded Tweets and official statements virtually equally seriously. Trump's statements were given slightly more credibility overall, but with a strong partisan divide: Liberals took Biden's statements to have more credibility, and conservatives took Trump's statements to have more credibility.

Overall, the study suggests that many people are simply unaffected by the medium in which a global leader might choose to issue a warning to leaders of other nations. In the surveys, participants were given the opportunity to describe qualitatively what shaped their responses; only about 2% cited the medium as an issue.

As Harris notes, the survey data also indicate that slightly more than 51% of respondents believed a tweet constituted an officially released government statement. Additionally, about 73% of respondents thought Tweets were generated in the same way as statements that have the official imprint of a national government.

"People who see a tweet don't really differentiate it in their minds. They don't think the tweet is not an official statement," Lin-Greenberg says. "About three-quarters of the population think it's coordinated, whether it's a Tweet or an official statement."

In the paper, the scholars suggest there is considerable room for follow-up research in this area. Among other things, future studies might compare the effect of social media statements to other types of communication, such as speeches. Scholars might also study other social media platforms or broaden the set of countries being studied. Such research, Lin-Greenberg and Harris conclude in the paper, "will further enrich our understanding of the interactions between emerging technology and international politics."

Provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News ( web.mit.edu/newsoffice/ ), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Antibiotic pollution disrupts the gut microbiome and blocks memory in aquatic snails, study finds

11 hours ago

A new Hungarian method may aid protein research

14 hours ago

Symbiosis study exposes new 'origin' theories, identifies experimental systems for plant life

AIM algorithm enhances super-resolution microscope images in real time

Study reveals maintenance of male-related genes after loss of males in stick insects

15 hours ago

Research team shows theoretical quantum speedup with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

New wind speed sensor uses minimal power for advanced weather tracking

New sensing techniques can detect drought tolerance in ancient crops, may inform new breeding programs

Researchers apply quantum computing methods to protein structure prediction

Abandoned farmlands could play a role in fighting climate change. A study shows exactly where they are

16 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

5 hours ago

Etymology of fart in a handful of PIE languages

8 hours ago

Most Underrated Rock Drummer?

13 hours ago

Biographies, history, personal accounts

Who is your favorite jazz musician and what is your favorite song.

May 28, 2024

For WW2 buffs!

May 27, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Study finds partisan congressional speech shifts with platform

Mar 26, 2024

Study shows relatively low number of superspreaders responsible for large portion of misinformation on Twitter

Trump's Tweets: telling truth from fiction from the words he used

Jan 27, 2022

Twitter shifts US presidential accounts to Biden team

Jan 20, 2021

Twitter won't block world leaders, citing need for discourse

Jan 6, 2018

New Twitter biggie Musk may have thoughts on edit button

Apr 5, 2022

Recommended for you

Study finds women are vulnerable in post-war peace processes

17 hours ago

YouTube's comments section: Political echo chamber or constructive cross-partisan forum?

Simulations suggest ideas that cross international borders may have powerful 'butterfly effect' on elections

Our political debates may not be as antagonistic as we think, study shows

20 hours ago

Imagined otherness: Why we dehumanize our political opponents

Algorithms could help improve judicial decisions

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Is Sunscreen Bad for You? Doctors Break It Down

Let’s debunk the worst sunscreen misinformation on X and TikTok right now.

We may earn commission from links on this page, but we only recommend products we back. Why Trust Us?

• Several social media influencers have made claims that sunscreen is bad for you.
• Research has proven that sunscreen can help lower the risk of developing skin cancer.
• Doctors recommend wearing sunscreen every time you step outside.

Social media has a reputation for spreading misinformation, especially around health. But there is a growing wave of influencers who insist that sunscreen is bad for you, and it’s getting plenty of attention.

Kristin Cavallari also said in a January episode of her Let’s Be Honest podcast that she doesn’t wear sunscreen. Her guest, holistic doctor Ryan Monahan, responded by saying, “the sun is life-giving and nourishing” and claimed that following an anti-inflammatory diet can create an “antioxidant reservoir” in the body. That, along with developing a “base coat” of a tan through gradual sun exposure can help people be outside without getting burned, he claimed.

While Monahan said that having astaxanthin—a pigment that shows up in shrimp, trout, and yeast—in your diet can help lower your risk of burns, that is based on a very small study and animal studies. There are also potential dangers to implying people don’t need sunscreen at all.

Meet the experts : Ife J. Rodney, M.D ., founding director of Eternal Dermatology + Aesthetics; Gary Goldenberg, M.D. , a board-certified dermatologist practicing in New York City; Cindy Wassef, M.D ., an assistant professor at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Joshua Zeichner, M.D ., director of cosmetic and clinical research in dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital.

Years of research has found that unprotected sun exposure can lead to skin cancer, and that sunscreen can help. Here’s what you need to know.

Does sunscreen cause cancer?

More than 3 million people in the U.S. are diagnosed each year with skin cancer, making it the most common form of cancer diagnosed in this country, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Skin cancer is an abnormal growth of skin cells, which is usually caused by the sun’s harmful rays, according to the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). Genes and environmental factors—including exposure to harmful UV rays from the sun—can play a role in a person’s development of skin cancer, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says.

The AAD recommends using a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher to help prevent skin cancer and recommends using sunscreen whenever you’ll be outside, even on cloudy days. Other steps, like seeking shade when you can—especially between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. when the sun’s rays are the strongest—and avoiding tanning beds can also help lower your skin cancer risk, the AAD says.

Claims that sunscreen causes cancer are “absolutely not” true, says Gary Goldenberg, M.D. , a board-certified dermatologist practicing in New York City. “These social media claims are completely false and aren’t based on any scientific data,” he says. “ Data clearly show that UV [rays] cause skin cells to mutate and produce cancerous cells.”

The data is “indisputable and multiple mutations have been identified,” Dr. Goldenberg says. “It’s also been shown that sun protection, including using sunscreen, can help decrease skin cancer cell formation,” he adds.

It’s not clear what kind of cancer influencers think sunscreen causes, but there is no evidence linking sunscreen use, including chemical sunscreen use, to any form of cancer, points out Ife J. Rodney, M.D ., founding director of Eternal Dermatology + Aesthetics. “There are chemicals in a bunch of different substances that we put on our skin and in medications,” she says. “You really have to take all information in context and make sure you’re basing your actions on fact.”

What chemicals should you avoid in sunscreen?

All chemicals that are used in chemical sunscreens in the U.S. are approved by the FDA , Dr. Goldenberg points out. “Chemical sunscreens have been shown to be safe,” he says. “There’s no cause and effect evidence in humans that they cause cancer.”

However, some people are wary of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAP) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PFTE). These are PFAS compounds, aka “forever chemicals,” although most sunscreens that contain them only have them at low levels, according to the University of Colorado . PFAS is also found in the water, air, and soil, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Oxybenzone is another ingredient that has been flagged over concerns that it’s a hormone disrupter. But there are no conclusive studies that oxybenzone is harmful to humans, and research that links oxybenzone to harm cite rat studies where the rodents were actually fed oxybenzone. It would take someone 277 years of sunscreen use to have the same dose that produced these effects, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology .

“At one point, there were reports of benzene being present in sunscreen,” says Cindy Wassef, M.D ., an assistant professor at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. (Benzene is a cancer-causing substance that’s typically used as a solvent, per the National Cancer Institute .) “This is not a sunscreen ingredient, but represented a contaminant,” Dr. Wassef says.

Why people should use sunscreen

A lot of the commentary around skipping sunscreen points out that our caveman ancestors didn’t wear sunscreen and didn’t get skin cancer (that we know of).

But it’s not that our ancestors figured out how to avoid skin cancer—they typically died before the cumulative effects of sun damage would show up as skin cancer, Dr. Rodney says. “Skin cancers usually arise from cumulative sun damage,” she explains. “As time goes on, your risk of skin cancer increases. By the 50s or 60s, a lot of people who should have gotten skin cancer would see it by that point.”

But sunscreen has been proven to lower your risk of developing skin cancer, points out Joshua Zeichner, M.D ., director of cosmetic and clinical research in dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital. “When it comes to sunscreen, the benefits in protecting the skin against the development of skin cancers, including life-threatening melanoma, outweigh any perceived risks that sunscreen is harmful to your health,” he says. “Be cautious in listening to unvetted information you may hear on social media. Anyone can say whatever they want on social media, whether it is factually correct or not.”

What’s the safest kind of sunscreen?

All of the sunscreens sold in the U.S., whether they are mineral or chemical based, have been tested to be safe in humans, Dr. Rodney points out.

“Ultimately, the type of sunscreen you use is your personal preference,” Dr. Zeichner says. “Mineral sunscreens are a great option for kids and people who are sensitive, since they tend to be less potentially irritating. However, they can leave behind a white cast on the skin if not fully rubbed in.”

Dr. Rodney suggests including both mineral and chemical sunscreen in your routine, if you don’t have sensitive skin. “Chemical sunscreen usually goes on the skin easier and has a more elegant finish,” which makes it ideal for layering under makeup and using on the face, she says. “But mineral sunscreen blocks a larger spectrum,” she adds.

The bottom line

There is a lot of research to support the use of sunscreen to lower your risk of developing skin cancer—and from getting burned when you're out in the sun. If you have questions about sunscreen safety, consult a board-certified dermatologist for more information—not a social media influencer.

What Are the FLiRT COVID-19 Variants?

10 Doctor-Recommended Menopause Supplements to Try

11 Reasons Why Your Tongue Is Super Swollen

What You Need to Know About Mewing

Should I Take Magnesium and Vitamin D Together?

Kate Middleton Has Been Seen ‘Out and About’

5 Ways COPD Affects Your Mood—And How You Can Cope

Find the Best COPD Care Team for You

Keep Your COPD Under Control During Life’s Changes

7 Steps to Working Out While Living with COPD

5 Signs Your COPD Treatment Isn’t Working

'Hugely damaging': Most Americans are being harassed online when using Facebook, Twitter and Reddit

Online hate and harassment rose sharply in the United States this year across demographics, leading to the highest rates in the country since 2020, according to a new study released Tuesday.

The Anti-Defamation League’s annual survey found more than half of Americans reported experiencing online hate and harassment at some point in their lives, up from 40% in 2022. About 33% of adults said they experienced online hate, up from 23% in 2022 and the increase was starker for teens, with 51% reporting online hate this year, up from 36%.

The poll surveyed 2,139 adults and 550 youth in March and April, asking about their lifetime experiences with online hate as well as what they had seen and heard in the past 12 months. The findings have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points for adults and 4 percentage points for youth. 

“Online hate and harassment is a really serious problem,” Jordan Kraemer, director of research at ADL, said. “Even when it stays online, it’s hugely damaging and the people to whom it’s the most damaging are often those who are not in a position of power to make the necessary changes.” 

Which social media platforms see hate speech?  

Although Facebook is still the platform where harassment occurs the most, attacks have been steadily decreasing on the site, according to poll respondents. Of those who reported harassment, 54% indicated that it took place on Facebook, compared with 66% who said that in 2021.

“Although we saw a slight decline on Facebook, we saw increases on TikTok, Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram, so it’s certainly possible that it’s happening elsewhere as opposed to being reduced overall,” Kraemer said. 

Respondents who reported hate and harassment taking place on Reddit jumped from 5% in 2022 to 15% in 2023. A similar increase was reported by respondents on TikTok, with 19% saying they had been attacked on the platform this year compared with 15% saying that in 2022. About 27% of respondents said they were attacked on Twitter, compared with 21% of respondents saying that in 2022.

In its annual social media safety index , GLAAD, a nonprofit focused on LGBTQ advocacy, gave low and failing scores to all five main social media platforms – Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Twitter – on LGBTQ safety. Twitter was the most dangerous social platform for LGBTQ people, according to GLAAD.

Oliver Haimson, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Information, said through his research he found that especially for the transgender community, Facebook is not typically used as the primary social media platform to explore gender and sexual identities. He said this could be a reason why people are experiencing less harassment on Facebook compared with before.

“Some of my past work has found that people use Facebook more to keep up with friends and family and people that they know in the physical world,” Haimson said. “So, people aren’t usually doing a lot of playing around with identity on Facebook.” 

Online hate targets LGBTQ people and transgender youth 

Increases in harassment rates are more pronounced among LGBTQ populations and marginalized communities of color, with about 75% of transgender respondents saying it is a problem.

Ross von Metzke, director of communications for the It Gets Better Project, a nonprofit aiming to uplift and empower LGBTQ youth, said the rise in online hate and harassment against LGBTQ and transgender youth in particular can be attributed to the rise in bills being proposed about these communities. 

More than 500 bills have been introduced by Republicans this year that affect the LGBTQ population. The majority of these bills specifically impact transgender life by limiting access to health care, bathrooms and sports. 

“That sort of rhetoric and behavior translates to online hate. There’s a direct line,” von Metzke said. “If you are seeing a rise in hateful bigoted behavior among school administrators, or lawmakers or parents … that’s going to bleed over into the digital space.” 

The ADL survey found online harassment can lead to withdrawal from online spaces. Experts noted this is particularly harmful for LGBTQ youth, who often utilize social media as a form of gender and sexual exploration. 

“This is really especially difficult because so many LGBTQ people and trans people in particular use online spaces to build community and it’s really important, especially for people who are more isolated,” Haimson said.

ADL said it strongly recommends tech companies enact policies that combat hate and harassment on their platforms in a transparent and equitable way. This should include regaining the public trust through regularly conducted individual audits, the ADL report stated.