Abstract:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and person-level observational studies feature prominently in debates over social media harms. I highlight some under-acknowledged limitations of such evidence. Most important is that published RCTs typically identify effects of a \textit{local}, or small-scale, intervention: a person is assigned to quit social media, but her immediate peers continue using it in large numbers. Critics of social media, in contrast, focus on a \textit{global}, or large-scale, intervention: the mass adoption of social media among U.S. teenagers. Such global interventions alter both the proximal social environment and the broader culture, potentially harming teenagers who abstain from social media entirely. This paper discusses the local--global distinction at length and offers other notes on the limits of learning about social media harms from existing RCTs and person-level observational studies. I suggest that triangulating different forms of imperfect evidence may provide the deepest insights about social media's aggregate effect on teen mental health.
From: Chris Felton [view email]
[v1]
Sat, 30 May 2026 21:46:00 UTC (39 KB)
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。