The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we also have a lot of observational evidence that is showing many of the Bradford Hill criteria started with a dose dependent response we know that the more people the more time that people spend on social media the more likely they are to experience anxiety depression insomnia in attention Etc
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
um now you could argue well Chicken and the Egg maybe those were individuals who were vulnerable or already had depression anxiety which made them want to self-medicate by using more social media but I think the strongest evidence uh against that is the um the evidence that we have on another Bradford heral criteria which is experimentation when we intervene in these cases of depressed and anxious individuals and take social media away for a period of time or even limit use people are feeling less depressed and anxious and that is a very powerful piece of evidence to me