1354 stories
·
1 follower

LLMs are a 400-year-long confidence trick

1 Share

In 1623 the German Wilhelm Schickard produced the first known designs for a mechanical calculator. Twenty years later Blaise Pascal produced a machine of an improved design, aiming to help with the large amount of tedious arithmetic required in his role as a tax collector.

The interest in mechanical calculation showed no sign of reducing in the subsequent centuries, as generations of people worldwide followed in Pascal and Wilhelm’s footsteps, subscribing to their view that offloading mental energy to a machine would be a relief.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

How to write your own website:

1 Share

I recently wrote an essay on why you should set up a personal website rather then using social media. Doing so lets you own your space on the internet, customize it and free your readers from constant advertising and algorithmic feeds designed to keep you stuck doomscrolling all day.

However, despite how much time we spend using it, creating something for the intenet is seen as arcane wizardy by most people. This is a fairly accessable guide to getting started.

You’ll need a text editor (any will do) and a browser (you already have one).

All pages are written in HTML, which is a simple text-based format. To start with, this is a perfectly valid HTML document:

Check out my epic site!

To try this, just create a text file with a ".html" extension, and open it in your favorite browser. Do this now: experimenting is the best way to learn how everything works.

This is what it should look like:

Check out my epic site!

Plain text is boring, so let’s add some formatting:

Check out my <b>epic</b> site!
Check out my epic site! If your browser shows angle brackets on the page, it's likely you accidentally created a file with double extentions. You can check for this by looking at the URL bar: It should look something like this "file://.../site.html" If it doesn't end with ".html" but instead ".html.txt" or similar, will will need to fix the file name.

Windows will hide the real file extention by default: If you are using it, ensure that "Show file extentions" is enabled in the file explorer settings.

The angle bracket things are tags: "<b>" is an opening tag, and "</b>" is the matching closing tag. The word surrounded by brackets ("b") is the tag name, which tells the browser what to do: In this case, bolding the enclosed text.

The other formatting tags are <em> emphasis, <u> underline, <sub> subscipt, <sup> superscript, <small> small text, <mark> highlight and <del> deleted.

You don’t have to memorize this list, but go and try a few out.

There’s also <br/> (break), which adds a line break. It’s special because there’s no closing tag: It always immediately closed and can’t contain any text. I like to add a slash after the tag name to indicate this

A big wall of text can get quite ugly, so it’s good to break it up with <p> (paragraph) tags. Each paragraph will be visually separated from other content on the page:

<p>
Check out my <em>new</em> site:
</p>
<p>
I have many <b>epic</b> things here.
</p>

Check out my new site:

I have many epic things here.

Together, the maching tags and their contents form an an element. Elements can contain other elements, but it’s important that they are closed in the correct order:

This is wrong:

<em>Some <b>random</em> text</b>
<!-- <em> (parent) is closed *before* <b> (child) -->
<!-- Don't do this! -->

<!-- By the way, these are comments. They don't do anything, but they 
are good for leaving notes. Just don't use them for secret information:
they can  be seen by anyone who presses presses control-u -->

… but this is fine:

<em>Some <b>random</b> text</em>
<!-- <em> (parent) is closed *after* <b> (child) -->
<!-- Perfectly fine. -->

Browsers will attempt to render invalid HTML, but the results may not be what you intended: It’s best to make it easy for them.

On that topic, it’s good practice to put all your content inside a <body> element which is itself inside a <html> element:

<html>
	<body>
		<p>Check out my new site:</p>
		<p>I have many <b>epic</b> things here.</p>
	</body>
</html>

Check out my new site:

I have many epic things here.

This isn’t mandatory, but helps browsers render your page correctly: In the case of an old browser, you don’t want metadata (we’ll add some later) getting confused for page content.

Ok, back to text-wall-avoidance: the <ul> and <ol> (unordered/ordered list) tags create, well, lists. Each item should be wraped in <li> tags (list item)

<html><body>

<p>About this site (unordered):
	<ul>
		<li>This site has <b>epic</b> things</li>
		<li>... and I wrote it myself</li>
	</ul>
</p>

<p>
	It uses these tags: (ordered)
	<ol>
		<li>&lt;html&gt;</li>
		<li>&lt;body&gt;</li>
		<li>&lt;p&gt;</li>
		<li>&lt;ul&gt; and &lt;ol&gt;</li>
		<li>&lt;li&gt;</li>
	</ol>
</p>

</body></html>

About this site (unordered):

  • It has epic things
  • ... and is handwritten HTML

It uses these tags: (ordered)

  1. <html>
  2. <body>
  3. <p>
  4. <ul> and <ol>
  5. <li>

You can add angle brackets to a page with &gt; (>), &lt; (<) and &amp; (&). These entities will render as the corresponding charater, but won’t form tags.

Headings use <h1> (heading 1) through <h5> (heading 5), with larger numbers using smaller font sizes:

<html><body>

<h1>My cool site:</h1>

<p>This site has <b>epic</b> things and I wrote it myself.</p>

<h3>Other cool places:</h3>

<p>To do: Figure out how to add links.</p>

</body></html>

My cool site:

This site has epic things and I wrote it myself.

Other cool places:

To do: Figure out how to add links.

About that. Links are just <a> (anchor) tags, but they have something new: an attribute after the tag name but before the bracket.

I found this <a href=https://www.righto.com/>cool blog</a> about electronics. 
I found this cool blog about electronics.

The "href= " attribute sets where the link points to. A lot of other tags can also have attributes: For example, ordered lists with "reverse=true" count backwards.

The URL in "href=" can be relative: If linking up multiple pages on the same site, instead of this:

<a href=https://example.com/some/page>Some page</a>

… just write this:

<a href=/some/page>Some page</a>

Images work similarly to links, except that they are self-closing elements like <br/>:

<p>Check out this <a href=/astro/m27>picture</a> of a nebula I took!</p>

<img src=/astro/m27/small.jpg />

Check out this picture of a nebula I took!

(If you don’t have a URL for your image, skip to the hosting section to set one up)

That’s all the essentials, but there’s a lot of other useful tags. For example <details> creates a dropdown that works with ctrl-f:

Awsome dropdown (click me!)

This is a dropdown with just HTML. It works well with browser features (ctrl-f, fragment identifiers, screen readers, etc) by default.

(better usability than 99% of commercial sites!)

…but I can’t cover everything without writing a whole book. (The Mozzila docs are a fantastic reference)

Making it look nice:

At this point, you should have something like this:

<html>
<body>
	<h1>Check out my cool site:</h1>
	<p>
	I made this site to write about things I do.
	More updates <em>soon™</em>.
	</p>

	<h2>Other cool places:</h2>
	<ul>
		<li><a href=https://www.righto.com/>Ken Shirriff's blog</a></li>
	</ul>

	<h2>Photography:</h2>
	<p>Here's my <a href=/astro/m27>picture</a> of the Dumbbell Nebula:</p>
	<img src=/astro/m27/small.jpg />
</body>
</html>

Check out my cool site:

I made this site to write about things I do. More updates soon™.

Other cool places:

Photography:

Here's my picture of the Dumbbell Nebula:

Let’s start by giving the page a machine-readable title:

<html>
<head>
	<title>My epic site</title>
</head>

<!-- snip -->

Like with <body>, the <head> tag isn’t required, but it is good to include it: Otherwise, any metadata that the browser doesn’t understand might be mistaken for content.

The page still looks kinda bad: Text extending the edges of the page isn’t exactly easy to read. It’s not too bad when crammed into my blog, but longer paragraphs will look terrible on large monitors.

To fix this, we need to add some style and layout information using the <style> tag:

<!-- snip -->
	<style>
		body {
			max-width: 30em;
		}
	</style>
</head>
<!-- snip -->

Unlike other tags, the contents of <style> isn’t HTML, but CSS: a whole other langauge embedded within the file. CSS is compoosed of blocks, each begining with a selector to control what gets effected. Here, this is just the name of a tag: "head"

The selector is followed by a series of declarations wraped in curly braces. My example only has one: "max-width: 30em;" This caps the width of the element at 30 times the font size:

Check out my cool site:

I made this site to write about things I do. More updates soon™.

Other cool places:

Photography:

Here's my picture of the Dumbbell Nebula:

The page is looking rather asymetrical, so let’s center the column. For fixed-width elements, this can be done using the "margin" property:

<!-- snip -->
	<style>
		body {
			max-width: 30em;
			margin: auto;
		}
	</style>
</head>
<!-- snip -->

Check out my cool site:

I made this site to write about things I do. More updates soon™.

Other cool places:

Photography:

Here's my picture of the Dumbbell Nebula:

(For varable width elements, use flexbox for centering and other fancy layouts. A single line of text can be centered with "text-align=center")

Personally, I like dark themed sites, so lets change some of the colors:

<!-- snip -->
	<style>
		html {
			background-color: back;
		}

		body {
			max-width: 30em;
			margin: auto;
			color: white;
		}
		
		a:link {color: #4ee;}
		a:visited {color: #399;}
	</style>
</head>
<!-- snip -->

Check out my cool site:

I made this site to write about things I do. More updates soon™.

Other cool places:

Photography:

Here's my picture of the Dumbbell Nebula:

The "color" style will carry over to every element inside of the styled tag, so there’s no need to individually change the text-color of every element. However, the links do need to be changed because they override the color by default.

That’s it. Everything you need to replicate my blog, minus a few small bits like the sans-serif font, nagivation box, etc. Of course, your website can and should be different: It’s yours.

I highly recomend you read some documenation and play around with CSS. There’s also way more to it then I can possbly cover here. Every website you see was created with it, and it even supports animations and basic interactivity.

… also, check out your browser’s devtools (ctrl-shift-i): It will have a nice GUI for editing which shows you the result in real time and shows you what’s going on under the hood.

If you ever run out of tags, you can just make up your own and style them as needed. As long as the name includes a hypen, it’s guaranteed not to be included in any future version of HTML. The specification even lists <math-α> and <emotion-😍> as allowed custom elements names.

I’ve used this heavily on this page: All the example websites aren’t screenshots, they are <fake-frame> elements styled up to look like a browser window. Custom tags are also very handy for styling text:

<html>
	<style>
		html {
			color: white;
			background-color: black;
		}
		green-text {
			color: green;
		}
	</style>

	It <green-text>works</green-text>!
</html>
It works!

Sharing it:

At this point you should have a reasonably nice page ready to put up on the internet. The easiest way to do this is to use a static file hosting service like Github Pages or Cloudflare Pages. Both of these have generous free tiers that should last a very long time.

If you don’t like big companies, there are plenty of similar, smaller services. These can be more limited: The popular Neocities charges $5/mo to use a custom domain.

Another option is to rent a server ($3-$5/mo) or, if you have good internet, run one yourself. This is by far the most fiddly option: I would not recommend it unless you like playing with computers.

All off these (except a server) will give you a subdomain by default. For example, Github Pages will give you your-username.github.io However, I do recommend setting up a custom domain: This will let you switch providers seamlessly should anything happen.

All of these will work in a similar way: Upload a file with some name, and it will given a URL with that same name. The one exception is that files called "index.html" will be viewable at the root of the folder they are in.

Filename          URL

root/
+- my_cats.html   https://example.com/my_cats.html
+- cat_photos/    
|   +- cat1.jpg   https://example.com/cat_photos/cat1.jpg
|   +- cat2.jpg   https://example.com/cat_photos/cat2.jpg
|   +- index.html https://example.com/cat_photos/
|
+- index.html     https://example.com/ 

You should put an index.html in the root of your site to serve as the homepage, but apart from that, the organization is up to you.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
14 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Pulling the Thread on Talenti’s Stubborn Lids

1 Share
CT scans reveal why Talenti gelato lids are so hard to open. See how thread design, torque, and cold shrinkage make the brand’s iconic jars infamous.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
14 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Finally, Some Good AI Policies

1 Share
Finally, Some Good AI Policies

For the lion’s share of companies, there seem to be two schools of thought around generative AI: 1) We’re gonna add it to everything, customer sentiment be damned, and then we’re gonna be rich, rich, rich, or 2) Of course we’re wary of AI’s implications, but c'maahn I'm just a little guy, it's also my birthday, I'm a little birthday boy. I’d like to personally commend Games Workshop and Bandcamp for bucking this trend. 

The former, which makes Warhammer, said as part of its recent financial results that while a few senior managers at the company are well-versed in AI and have been given free rein to be “inquisitive” about potential usage, “none are that excited about it yet,” and it’s banned otherwise.

“We have agreed an internal policy to guide us all, which is currently very cautious e.g. we do not allow AI generated content or AI to be used in our design processes or its unauthorized use outside of GW including in any of our competitions,” said CEO Kevin Rountree (via IGN). “We also have to monitor and protect ourselves from a data compliance, security and governance perspective; the AI or machine learning engines seem to be automatically included on our phones or laptops whether we like it or not.”

He added that “we have also agreed we will be maintaining a strong commitment to protect our intellectual property and respect our human creators. In the period reported, we continued to invest in our Warhammer Studio – hiring more creatives in multiple disciplines from concepting and art to writing and sculpting. Talented and passionate individuals that make Warhammer the rich, evocative IP that our hobbyists and we all love.”

Bandcamp, one of the few services that still tries to help musicians make money, took things a step further, announcing this week that music generated “wholly or in substantial part by AI is not permitted.” AI impersonations of existing artists are also not allowed.

“We believe that the human connection found through music is a vital part of our society and culture, and that music is much more than a product to be consumed,” the company wrote. “It’s the result of a human cultural dialog stretching back before the written word. Similarly, musicians are more than mere producers of sound. They are vital members of our communities, our culture, and our social fabric. Bandcamp was built to directly connect artists and their fans, and to make it easy for fans to support artists equitably so that they can keep making music.”

Bandcamp’s stance is a crucial one as the popularity of AI-generated music, regrettably, explodes. Take, for example, neo-soul artist Sienna Rose, who has three songs in the Spotify top 50 despite not existing. “She,” unfortunately, is just the tip of the iceberg. This does not mean AI has reached a standard of quality such that it’s an acceptable substitute for art made by people with hopes, dreams, and, well, souls; rather, decades of paint-by-numbers pop formulated by the same nine producers and the hyper-commercialization of music by services like Spotify – turning artists’ blood, sweat, and tears into disposable background noise – have primed people to accept watered-down, machine-made gruel. It’s not unlike the way SEO and algorithms turned numerous websites into barely sentient content mills before AI swooped in and finished the job. The powers that be have been trying to build this world for decades. AI was just the missing puzzle piece.

All we can do now is support the people and organizations that prioritize authentic human ingenuity while doing the slow, hard work of constructing something, anything, better than the modern internet – preferably somewhere else.   

Please Seek Help Immediately
Motherfucker have you listened to yourself
Finally, Some Good AI Policies
Read the whole story
mrmarchant
14 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Mountains of Evidence

1 Share

Much of the confusion in the debate over whether social media1 is harming young people can be cleared away by distinguishing two different questions, only one of which needs an urgent answer:

The historical trends question: Was the spread of social media in the early 2010s (as smartphones were widely adopted) a major contributing cause of the big increases in adolescent depression, anxiety, and self-harm that began in the U.S. and many other Western countries soon afterward?

The product safety question: Is social media safe today for children and adolescents? When used in the ordinary way (which is now five hours a day), does this consumer product expose young people to unreasonable levels of risk and harm?

Social scientists are actively debating the historical trends question — we raised it in Chapter 1 of The Anxious Generation — but that’s not the one that matters to parents and legislators. They face decisions today and they need an answer to the product safety question. They want to know if social media is a reasonably safe consumer product, or if they should keep their kids (or all kids) away from it until they reach a certain age (as Australia is doing).

Social scientists have been debating this question intensively since 2017. That’s when Jean Twenge suggested an answer to both questions in her provocative article in The Atlantic: “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” In it, she showed a historical correlation: adolescent behavior changed and their mental health collapsed just at the point in time when they traded in their flip phones for smartphones with always-available social media. She also showed a correlation relevant to the product safety question: The kids who spend the most time on screens (especially for social media) are the ones with the worst mental health. She concluded that “it’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen [Gen Z] as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.”

Twenge’s work was met with strong criticism from some social scientists whose main objection was that correlation does not prove causation (for both the historical correlation, and the product safety correlation). The fact that heavy users of social media are more depressed than light users doesn’t prove that social media caused the depression. Perhaps depressed people are more lonely, so they rely on Instagram more for social contact? Or perhaps there’s some third variable (such as neglectful parenting) that causes both?

Since 2017, that argument has been made by nearly all researchers who are dismissive about the harms of social media. Mark Zuckerberg used the argument himself in his 2024 testimony before the U.S. Senate. Under questioning by Senator Jon Osoff, he granted that the use of social media correlates with poor mental health but asserted that “there’s a difference between correlation and causation.”

In the last few years, however, a flood of new research has altered the landscape of the debate, in two ways. First, there is now a lot more work revealing a wide range of direct harms caused by social media that extends beyond mental health (e.g., cyberbullying, sextortion, and exposure to algorithmically amplified content promoting suicide, eating-disorders, and self-harm). These direct harms are not correlations; they are harms reported by millions of young people each year. Second, recent research — including experiments conducted by Meta itself — provides increasingly strong causal evidence linking heavy social media use to depression, anxiety, and other internalizing disorders. (We refer to these as indirect harms because they appear over time rather than right away).

Source: Shutterstock

Together, these findings allow us to answer the product safety question clearly: No, social media is not safe for children and adolescents. The evidence is abundant, varied, and damning. We have gathered it and organized it in two related projects which we invite you to read:

  • A review paper, in press as part of the World Happiness Report 2026, in which we treat the product safety question as a mock civil-court case and organize the available research into seven lines of evidence. The first three lines reveal widespread direct harm to adolescents around the world. Lines four through seven reveal compelling evidence that social media substantially increases the risk of anxiety and depression, and that reducing social media use leads to improvements in mental health. Taken together, these lines of evidence provide a firm answer to the product safety question.

  • MetasInternalResearch.org, a new website that catalogues 31 internal studies carried out by Meta Inc. The studies were leaked by whistleblowers or made public through litigation — despite Meta’s intentions to keep them hidden. The most incriminating among them: an experiment designed to establish causality, where Meta’s researchers concluded that social media causes harm to mental health.

In the rest of this post we present the Tables of Contents from these two projects, so that you can jump into the projects wherever you like and see for yourself the many kinds of research demonstrating harm to adolescents. After that, we return to the historical trends question to suggest an answer. We show that the scale of harm we found while answering the product safety question is so vast, affecting tens of millions of adolescents across many Western nations, that it suggests (though does not prove) that the global spread of social media in the early 2010s probably was a major contributor to the international decline of youth mental health in the following years. We suggested this in Chapter 1 of The Anxious Generation. The two mountains of evidence we present here make that suggestion even more plausible today.

Subscribe now

The Review Paper: Seven Lines of Evidence

The World Happiness Report (WHR) is a UN-backed annual ranking that has become the global reference point for national well-being research. It draws on Gallup World Poll data from more than 150 countries. We were invited to write a chapter for the upcoming WHR on the 2026 theme: the association between social media and well-being. Following their 2024 report, which documented a widespread decline of well being among young people, this year they ask whether social media’s global spread in the 2010s was a major contributor to that decline. Our chapter, “Social Media is Harming Young People at a Scale Large Enough to Cause Changes at the Population Level,” offers an answer to the product safety question — no — and to the historical trends question — yes.

The editors graciously allowed us to post our peer-reviewed chapter online before the March 19 publication date so that discussion and debate on this topic can begin immediately.

We structured the chapter as if we were filing a legal brief offering 15 exhibits organized into seven separate lines of evidence. The first three lines are the equivalent of testimony from witnesses in a trial. If the people who had the clearest view of an event say that Person A punched Person B, that would count as evidence of Person A’s guilt. The evidence is not definitive — the witnesses could be mistaken or lying — but it is legitimate and relevant evidence. Here’s the structure of that part of the chapter:

After establishing that the most knowledgeable witnesses perceive harm from social media, we move on to the four major lines of academic research. While most researchers agree that correlational studies find statistically significant associations between social media use and measures of anxiety and depression, and that social media reduction experiments find some benefits for mental health, the debate centers on whether the effects are large enough to matter.2 We show that the experimental effects and risk elevations are larger than is often implied — in fact, they are as large as many public health effects that our society takes very seriously (such as the impact of child maltreatment on the prospective risk of depression.)3

Furthermore, we take a magnifying glass to some widely cited studies that claim to show only trivial associations or effects between social media use and harm to adolescents (e.g., Hancock et al. (2022) and Ferguson (2024). We show that these studies actually reveal much larger associations when the most theoretically central relationships are examined — for example, when you focus the analysis on heavy social media use (rather than blending together all digital tech) linked specifically to depression or anxiety (rather than blending together all well-being outcomes) for adolescent girls (rather than blending in boys and adults).

Share

Meta’s Internal Research: Seven More Lines of Evidence

Throughout 2025, a variety of lawsuits against social media companies were progressing through the courts. In the briefs posted online by various state Attorneys General, we found references to dozens of studies that Meta had conducted. Some of this information had been available to the general public since 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen brought out thousands of screenshots of presentations and emails from her time working at Meta. Others were newly found by litigators in the process of discovery.4

The descriptions of these studies are scattered across multiple legal briefs, most of which are hundreds of pages long, so it has been difficult to keep track of them — until now. We have collected all publicly available information about the studies in one central repository, MetasInternalResearch.org. Indexed in this way, the scattered reports form a mountain of evidence that social media is not safe for children. The evidence was collected and hidden by Meta itself.

We found information on 31 studies related to the product safety question that Meta conducted between 2018 and 2024. Meta has long hired PhD researchers, particularly psychologists, to conduct internal research projects. (In January 2020, Jon met with members of this team and shared his concerns about what Instagram was doing to girls.) Meta’s researchers have access to vast troves of data on billions of users, including what exactly users saw and what emotions or behaviors they showed afterward. (This is known as “user-behavioral log data.”) Academic researchers never get access to rich data like this; they must devise their own surveys, which obtain a few crude proxy variables (such as “how many hours a day do you spend on social media?” and “How anxious were you yesterday?”). So we should pay attention to what Meta’s researchers found and how they interpreted their findings.

In one example, recently unsealed court documents from lawsuits brought by U.S. school districts against Meta and other platforms reveal that Meta conducted its own randomized control trial (considered to be the best way to study causal impact) in 2019 with the marketing research firm Nielsen. The project — code-named Project Mercury — asked a group of users to deactivate their Facebook and Instagram accounts for one month. According to the filings, Meta described the design of their study as being “of much higher quality” than the existing literature and that this study was “one of our first causal approaches to understand the impact that Facebook has on people’s lives… Everyone involved in the project has a PhD.” In pilot tests of the study, researchers found that “people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.” One Meta researcher also stated that “the Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison.”

In other words, Meta’s own research on the effects of social media reduction confirms those from academic researchers that we report in Line 6 of our review paper. Both sets of researchers find evidence of causation, not mere correlation.

We were impressed by the great variety of methods that Meta’s researchers used. In fact, the 31 studies we located fit neatly into seven lines that are similar to the seven lines we used in our review paper. The findings from Meta researchers are highly consistent with the findings from academic researchers, which gives us even more confidence in our conclusions about the product safety question.

Here’s the Table of Contents. Once again, after the introductory material, we present three lines of testimony:

We then move on to lines 4, 5, and 6, which correspond exactly to lines 4, 5, and 6 in the review paper: correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies, although line 7 is unique. (It involves reviews of academic literature conducted by Meta’s researchers.)

Returning to the Historical Trends Question

The product safety question is distinct from the historical trends question. A consumer product (e.g., a toy or food) can be unsafe for children without it producing an immediate or easily detectable increase in national rates of a particular illness.5

But social media is an unusual consumer product because of its vast user base and the enormous amount of time it takes from most users. It’s as if a new candy bar, intentionally designed to be addictive, was introduced in 2012 and, within a few years, 90% of the world’s children were consuming ten of these candy bars each day, which reduced their consumption of all other foods. Might there be increases in national rates of adolescent obesity and diabetes?

In our WHR review paper, we estimate the scale of direct harms (e.g., cyberbullying, sextortion, and exposure to disturbing content) and indirect harms (e.g., elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and eating disorders). We then show that these estimates are likely underestimates because they don’t account for network effects inherent to social media, nor the heightened impact of heavy use during the sensitive developmental period of puberty. All told, the number of affected children and adolescents likely reaches into the hundreds of millions, globally.

Once we consider the vast scale at which social media operates — used by the large majority of young people, for many hours each day, over many years, and across nearly all Western nations — it becomes clear that social media companies are harming young people on an industrial scale. It becomes far more plausible that this consumer product caused national levels of adolescent depression and anxiety to rise, especially for girls.

Leave a comment

Conclusion: What Now?

Academic debates over media effects often take decades to resolve. We expect that this one will continue for many years. But parents and policymakers cannot wait for resolution; they must make decisions now, based on the available evidence. The evidence we have collected shows clearly that social media is not safe for adolescents.

We believe that the evidence of direct and indirect harm that we have collected in these two complementary projects is now sufficient to justify the sort of action that the Australian government took in 2025 when it raised the age for opening or maintaining a social media account to 16. Just as the recent international trend of removing smartphones from schools is beginning to produce educational benefits, the research we reviewed suggests that removing social media from childhood and early adolescence is likely to produce a great variety of benefits, including lower rates of depression and many fewer victims of direct harms such as sexual harassment and sextortion.

Countries around the world ran a giant uncontrolled experiment on their own children in the 2010s by giving them smartphones and social media accounts at young ages. The evidence is in: the experiment has harmed them. It is time to call it off.

Subscribe now

1

By “social media” we mean platforms that include user profiles, user-generated content, networking, interactivity, and (in most cases) algorithmically curated content. Platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and X all share these features. This means that ordinary use includes interacting with adult strangers.

2

For examples of studies showing substantial risk elevations, see Kelly et al. (2019), Riehm (2019), Twenge et al. (2022), and Grund (2025). For examples of meaningful experimental effects, see Burnell et al. (2025).

3

Burnell et al. (2025) report an average effect of roughly g = 0.22 (about one-fifth of a standard deviation) for “well-being” outcomes in sustained social-media-reduction studies. Grummitt et al. (2024) estimate that the increased risk of depression and anxiety attributable to childhood maltreatment corresponds to effects of d = 0.22 and d = 0.25, respectively. See section “Indirect Harms to Millions” for more details.

4

We note that this is our only source of this information because Meta lobbies against legislation that requires them to share data with researchers, such as the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act.

5

The trend of any particular harm may of course have several major influences, some of which may counteract each other. This can add considerable complexity to the historical trends question.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
18 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The risks of AI in schools outweigh the benefits, report says

1 Share
undefined

A new report warns that AI poses a serious threat to children's cognitive development and emotional well-being.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
1 day ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories