Dive into a data-driven clash between Adam Cole and Joss Fong over how social media is shaping young minds in the podcast, Can we really blame social media?
A data-driven debate on social media and teenage mental-health. Representation pic/istock
THE question of whether social media is driving a mental health crisis among teenagers is one of the most urgent debates in today’s time. In the podcast, Can we really blame social media? A research showdown, host Charlie Yuncken relays two opposing views. Adam Cole argues that scientific evidence does not support the claim that social media is a major cause of teen distress, while co-host Joss Fong believes even small effects can be devastating when nearly every child is exposed to long hours of social media during a vulnerable stage of development.
The host and moderator of the podcast, Charlie Yuncken. Pic courtesy/Youtube
Is social media the problem?
Cole begins by questioning how mental-health data is interpreted. He notes, “That rising rates of anxiety, depression, and self-harm partly reflect falling stigma, broader diagnostic standards, and greater access to mental-health services. More teenagers are now being counted than in the past, he argues, which can make the crisis appear larger than it truly is.” He also challenges the idea that the present moment is historically unique. Cole points out that in the 1990s, the suicide rate for girls was only slightly lower than it is today, and for boys it was actually higher.
If social media was the main cause of today’s problems, he says, it would be difficult to explain why outcomes were worse decades before smartphones and platforms existed. Cole also highlighted international comparisons. Countries such as New Zealand adopted social media early, and have high usage, yet they do not show the same teen mental-health pattern as seen in the United States of America. This suggests that wider social or cultural factors may matter more than digital platforms alone.
Cole’s strongest evidence comes from a Stanford University study from 2025 in which thousands of people were asked to quit Instagram for six weeks. He mentions, “The result was a small improvement in emotional state — only 0.041 standard deviations. In psychology, 0.2 is considered the minimum for a meaningful effect, and 0.4 is considered clinically significant, showing that the Instagram effect was far below both thresholds.”
Adam Cole and Joss Fong debate if social media is bad for teenagers or not. Pic courtesy/Youtube
Agree to disagree
Fong agrees that many studies are flawed but she also says that the data gathered in most researches measure hours spent online by the children, and not what actually happens online. The real harm comes from moments such as their text message being left on, "seen" by their peers, or not getting likes, seeing friends excluded, or finding a crush in someone else’s story.” She concludes by linking this to early exposure saying, “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reports that 64% of 11- and 12-year-olds already have social-media accounts, even though the minimum age is 13, and by age 13, the children spend an average of four hours daily on social media, making young adolescents especially vulnerable to digital judgement resulting in the rapid decline of their mental health.”
To summarise, the debate remains unsettled from both sides. With the data pointing in different directions it is clear that this might just get more complicated in the future.
LOG ON TO @howtown on Youtube
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
