In March, a California Jury ruled that Meta and YouTube were responsible for harming a young user with their addictive content algorithms.
Social media is something we have all learned to depend on in the 21stcentury to facilitate our social interactions and keep in touch with community members.
But are these apps built with our best interest in mind?
Today on All Sides, we discuss the aftermath of the trial’s verdict. What might the future of social media look like?
Guests:
- Dr. Jacqueline Sperling, clinical psychologist/assistant professor, Harvard Medical School
- Cecilia Kang, technology reporter, The New York Times
Transcript
This transcript is generated with AI. To ensure its accuracy, review the audio file.
Amy Juravich: Welcome to All Sides with Amy Juravich. Recently, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube were responsible for harming a young user, Kaylee, the plaintiff of the case, with their addictive content algorithms. This case is similar to ones in the 20th century against tobacco products. Companies knowingly hooked young users on their products to increase user attention and revenue. There have been accusations of companies lying to the public about not targeting young users to keep them addicted to social media platforms.
Previous cases against social media giants like Meta and Snapchat went after inappropriate content. This case isn't about content, but the intentionality of addictively designs of the app. Joining us now to talk about the verdict in the Meta trial is Cecilia. Is Cecilia Kang, a tech reporter for the New York Times. Welcome to the show, Cecilia. Hi, Amy, thanks for having me. So first, can you talk about the plaintiff in the case who brought this to court, known as Kaylee or KGM? Why did she sue? And initially the suit was YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok and Metta, all of them.
Cecilia Kang: Yes, that's right. So as you said, she goes by the initials KGM. She was also referred to as Kaylee, her first name during the trial. She is now 20 years old. She's from Chico, California. And she began using social media at the age of six. That's when she started using YouTube. And after that, she signed on to Instagram at around the age eight or nine. And then after that TikTok and Snap.
So she used all four of the apps for the companies, the defendants in this trial. As you said, only two companies were ultimately defendants in the trial because two other companies settled and those companies are TikTok and Snap. So they did not have to face the actual litigation in trial, but YouTube and Metta. Were found liable at the end of the trial, yes.
Juravich: So this trial is being considered a bellwether case. What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that there will be more court cases? What is it when someone calls it a bell weather case? What do you think that means?
Kang: Yeah, that's right. And I think that you could literally is a bellwether case and also just in symbolism is a Bellwether in the in the sense that there were thousands of lawsuits that were filed by individuals against these social media companies. And what the judge in these individual cases, and these are personal injury cases, what they what she decided to do her name is Judge Kuhl in the LA Superior Court, the Superior Court of the County of LA.
She decided to choose a sampling of those thousand plus cases to be sort of the representative cases in this very novel set of trials on social media companies being liable for personal injury. And so Kaylee KGM was one of about nine cases that are literally bellwether cases in that whatever the verdicts are. In these cases, then the judge will decide if there is a class, a class action, and essentially allow for many, many other suits to come forward. And so this is, in a way, like a trial to see if the legal theory against these companies will stand and hold water in the long run.
Juravich: And so we mentioned, and you said, Snapchat and TikTok decided to settle before the trial. So they didn't go to a trial. They settled outside of that.
Kang: They will be. Oh, sorry. No, go ahead. Yeah, but they will but they have not settled for the in the next eight cases that are coming throughout the next I think about probably that certainly throughout this year and probably throughout next year to
Juravich: Okay, but then YouTube and Metta decided to wanted to move on to the trial. They decided to take it to court Um have companies like Metta and YouTube escaped liability in previous cases like have they won other cases? So they thought they had a chance here
Kang: Yeah, and as you said in your introduction, Amy, they have one, but always on the grounds that they are speech platforms and they're protected by two things, the First Amendment and a legal liability shield known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and That is a lot of words I just threw at you, but that legal... That act is very, very important to the Silicon Valley companies because what it does is essentially it gets them off free or it provides a shield for being liable for any content that they host.
So what that means is say a user puts something defamatory on YouTube or on Meta our Instagram, our Facebook. Meta and Google or YouTube cannot be sued for what users post because they are just simply a neutral platform is what section 230 protects them for. But this case is so different. And this is why this is novel and so interesting in that the plaintiffs, including KGM said, you know what, we're not suing based on what content you host. We're suing on the basis that you're. Technology itself is designed in a harmful manner. And so this is indeed the first time that they've been held liable for content, for excuse me, for technology design, not for content but for something very different.
Juravich: So the plaintiff argued when it came to these personal injuries that it caused, that the algorithm caused anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. Can you talk about how Instagram execs knew that their beauty filters could cause body dysmorphing on young users?
Kang: And Kayleigh experienced all of this, KJM experienced all this, so in that way, she was a very good bellwether case to explore all these different facets. So the idea that or the argument that Kayleigh brought forward was that the company's design was addictive and mentally and harmful to her mental health. And so the beauty filters are a great example. Beauty filters are essentially what allow users to embellish the way they look. It's just like it sounds. It's a filter that makes you look ostensibly more beautiful, at least in conventional standards.
Kids use it, they love it, and they are probably, they are very toxic, I think, for a lot of kids. And I think that that's what a lot of the mental health experts found. And what Kayleigh experienced was that once she was using these beauty filters on Instagram in particular. It really led to all these insecurities and feelings of body dysmorphia, as you said. Okay, so within the company, what was really important was the amount of evidence that the plaintiff's lawyers brought forward that showed that not only did the company executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Metta, not only that he know that these were problematic, but internally executives had said to him, Please banned these beauty filters.
They're not good for teens, they're not good for the mental health of our young users in particular. He heard those arguments and he ignored them. And there were separately other internal reports that showed that these beauty features were fantastic for engagement. And engagement, what I mean, is for people coming back more and more to engage on the apps. So what this mountain of internal documents, emails, documents, memos, et cetera, showed. Was that within the company, the plaintiffs argued, the top executives decided to choose business over the well-being of its users.
Juravich: This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking about the verdict in the meta trial and what it means for the future of social media with Cecilia Kang, a tech reporter for the New York Times. Talk to me a little bit about the defense. The defense in the trial, they were trying to say basically that it was the user's fault for getting addicted, right? Yes.
Kang: So they tried two things. They basically wanted to explain that to show that you cannot draw a direct line from technology use to mental health harms. They wanted to say that there was no, in other words, causation. They wanted it was perhaps corollary, but not causal, that social media use led to personal injury. So what they did was they brought up all of and they focus on all of the other troubling aspects of the life of the young life of KGM, Kaylee, to show that it could have been a number of things that led to her mental health harms, including just a really troubled and sad childhood and lots of different issues related to bullying and just a lot of home issues as well in her childhood.
So they wanted to show that you cannot pinpoint that it was social media use that led to her feelings of depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation. The second argument they had, defense they had was that indeed they tried to continue to evoke the idea that they should be protected by speech laws and this shield that I mentioned, section 230, saying that you really can't differentiate what this idea of. Of design choices from content, because ultimately these design choices allow for certain content. They really wanted to blur the line between the technology and the content that's on these platforms. In the end, the jury just did not see the distinction. And we can go into that more later.
Juravich: Well, and so the defense trying to claim that the plaintiff's family life was the main cause of her turmoil I mean, how is that really relevant to proving whether social media is addictive or not though?
Kang: Yeah, I know. And I think it was very much an attempt to seed doubt of this idea that there's a direct causal influence of social media and these personal injuries. There were jury members that were interviewed later by both sides, actually the plaintiffs Defense, as well as some of my colleagues, who said, you know, it didn't really matter to us in the end. What we saw was a really sad situation of a young woman whose life was irreparably harmed by her social media use.
And so yes, the companies did a sufficient job in arguing, trying to argue the technicalities of design choices and causal link versus corollary link, but as one jurors hold one of the social media companies after the decision. You might have had our minds, but you just didn't have our hearts.
Juravich: Hmm. I'm sure that that's interesting the way that the way that they said that. Yeah. What else did you want to say about the jury and how they reach their verdict?
Kang: Yeah, you know, I think it was so important that this was a jury trial. You know, it's like if you look at if it was the bench, if it wasn't a judge who were to decide on this, they would probably adhere much more closely to legal standards and case law on this. And so they it'd be very difficult for many jurists to look beyond these arguments of speech, for example. Or at least to incorporate that. But this is a set of people who have seen the evolution and the effect of social media as we all have have on not only ourselves as adults, but also on youth.
I don't think a single person of, I can't imagine a single one of your listeners, Amy, who hasn't seen a child just glued to their phone, and feeling some angst about that. Like maybe that's not a very healthy thing. So and kids really suffering from what they see on social media. So I think that the fact that it was a jury was made all the difference in the verdict. I was really surprised actually with the verdict because I've been told by so many legal experts that this was going to be a really, really hard case for the plaintiffs and the defendants had the stronger side. And the outcome was very different, and I think that's very much attributed to this being a jury.
Juravich: Now, there's been a lot of connections made between this case and the big tobacco cases of like 50 years ago. So how does the personal liability argument draw inspiration from, you know, all of these cases against cigarette companies?
Kang: Yeah, so in a few ways, in the sense that the cases are very similar, in the sense, that there was a mountain of evidence that showed internal deliberation and knowledge of potential harms. So that was analogous. The other thing is that this is, it took, I think, sort of you step back. There was a time when cigarettes were viewed as harmless, and in some cases actually marketed being healthy. Um, for those listeners who, who go back a little bit further and closer to my age, they might remember high schools had vending machines for, um, for cigarettes, sort of vending machines back then.
It was just not considered a harm. But I think what the, what the plaintiff's lawyers in the cigarette, um in the big tobacco cases did as well as here is they defended individuals and the state attorneys general. Um, got involved in suing the tobacco companies and now the social media companies for, um, personal injury, as we said, but also for public nuisance is what, and we're going to see that in another set of trials coming up this year, where they say that essentially these social media companies have incurred such a huge cost to them, school districts and States for all of the different programs for mental health, for tech programs to try to help students regulate their use of social media and phones, that the technology companies should be held liable for that and that they should be paying their share for that burden. That's really analogous to what happened in the tobacco trials where the states also sued for public nuisance and the cost that they had incurred for the health burdens that they took on for tobacco use.
Juravich: Now, after hearing the verdict, MEDA and YouTube didn't agree with it, obviously. And they promised they would fight back. But what does that mean, exactly? Are they going to appeal? Are they just going to move on to the next cases? Yeah, I-
Kang: this is going to take years to resolve. And I think that this is such an important area, a topic that I'll be following for years. They're going to appeal first to the California appellate. And then I think you can expect this to go all the way to the Supreme Court. You have to understand that these companies are so incredibly well-resourced. They have more cash than any other private company, any other companies. They have huge litigation departments and budgets. And for them, this is the question about whether they lose on this argument that they're harmful is existential to them. So they're going to take it to the mat. They're going to fight all the way to the end. So I do think you're going to expect first appeals in the state and then probably appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Juravich: In the next segment, we had planned to talk to a meta-executive turned whistleblower, but we're having trouble getting a hold of her. So I'm going to ask you just another question while we continue here, while we have some time. So do you think that this trial is going to make social media companies rethink it all, how they design their algorithms, maybe make them less addictive, or is that admitting wrongdoing?
Kang: Yeah. So I think in two ways possibly. So number one, a case that we haven't talked about, another verdict was in New Mexico. The attorney general there sued META, just METO, for harms to young people there. And the actual case was slightly different, but they also won, they meaning the state. And, um... And they had a huge verdict in their favor. $370 million will be paid to the state. But more potentially damaging for Metta is that there's going to be a second phase of that case where the attorney general is going to insist on changes to the technology itself, to what you're referring to, changes to algorithm and things like beauty filters, auto scroll, infinite scrolling, auto replay of videos.
All the things that make these apps super sticky and make users wanna stay on for longer and come back more and more. What the attorney general is suing for is that the companies must, and it's called injunctive relief, must change the way that their platforms are designed. That's what other attorney generals are also going to push for. So I think you might see along the edges with enough pressure, those kinds of changes. And I do think it is hugely terrifying for the companies because that's where so much of their revenue comes from. It's from the stickiness of their apps.
And it's really, I think, important to underscore this point. And the reason why is because, ultimately, the business demands it. These are ad businesses. These are companies that rely on advertising revenue for their revenues, for advertising revenues for their profits. And what drives advertising revenues is people using the app and their eyeballs and staying engaged. So the more you can get people to engage, it's just sort of this cycle. And it's what they call in Silicon Valley, the virtuous cycle or a flywheel effect. I think a lot of people would not call it so virtuous, but it's, what keeps these companies multi-billion dollar advertising revenue companies.
Juravich: And ever since the trial, and I don't know if this is just like a happenstance or anecdotal, but I have been seeing countless ads from Metta about their parental controls. So like ever since The Verdict, maybe these ads have always been there and I'm noticing them more. But I mean, do parental controls do anything about the addictive nature of social media or is it just smoke and mirrors?
Kang: No, I think there are two separate things. I think the parental controls, they can be helpful for some. And I think education campaigns on how these sites work can be help for some families. I think they're studies that show that they're not used hardly at all. But that's very separate from different design choices and the technology that make the. That creates some limits and guardrails for how often the sites are being used, how sticky they are, how pernicious some of these things like beauty filters can be. Like those are design choice, technology, engineering, and design choices that aren't affected by say, a parent knowing how long you're on the site or signing in or having some sort of knowledge. That's just, it's a separate idea.
Juravich: And just for one final question, the meta executive turned whistleblower who we're supposed to have on is unable to join us, but she is an advocate for more tech accountability. And basically she's like an executive who spoke up and said, hey, wait a minute, we should change these things and got basically shot down by other people in the room. Um, do you, are you hearing a lot about, um, these cases relying on people like that to help them out too? I mean is that how they know that you know to look like Mark that Mark Zuckerberg said you know like keep the keep the beauty filters that you know we need them.
Kang: So I think the origin of all of this disclosure about what's happening within the company probably began in 2021 with Frances Haugen. She's sort of known as one of the more, she was very public in her criticism of the company after she left, she's a whistleblower and she took thousands of pages of internal documents with studies on teenage mental health, et cetera. Um, so that was the That was one of the first big disclosures. And then she, sorry about that. And then after that with the lawsuits, there was a lot of discovery. That showed that basically collected many, many more internal documents. There was just amount, hundreds of thousands of pages of internal documents, so now everything is laid bare. A lot is laid barred. There is a real public revealing of the way people think within the companies.
Juravich: Top executives. We've been talking about the verdict in the recent meta and YouTube trial about app addiction with Cecilia Kang, a tech reporter for the New York Times. Thank you so much for joining us today and thanks for sticking around a little longer. We appreciate it. Yeah, you bet. Thank you. And coming up, we're going to hear about ways to handle social media addiction and what we can do about it to help kids. That is when All Sides continues on 89.7 NPR News.
Speaker 4: You know, every day on Up First, NPR's Golden Globe-nominated morning news podcast, we bring you three essential stories. At the heart of each story are questions. What really happened? What really mattered? What happens next? At NPR, we stand for your right to be curious and to follow the facts. Follow Up First wherever you get your podcasts and start your day knowing what matters and why.
Juravich: You're listening to All Sides. I'm your host, Amy Juravich. Around 63% of adults and 81% of teens use social media. But social media use can lead to loss of focus, poor sleep and memory issues. Social media algorithms target dopamine receptors in the brain to keep users stimulated when using their apps. But perhaps social media is not all bad. It has become a part of everyone's everyday lives, and social media can keep us connected to friends and loved ones that we don't see every day. To talk about social media and mental health, joining us now, we have Dr. Jacqueline Sperling, a clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Welcome to the show, Jacqueline.
Dr. Jacqueline Sperling: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
Juravich: So social media users may find themselves accidentally spending hours on the app, losing track of time. You know, no one is doom scrolling as we all do. What keeps users hooked on social media for hours on end?
Sperling: The variable ratio schedule reinforcement can keep users engaged and motivated to return to using. It's like the slot machine effect. You don't know when you might get a jackpot, but you keep putting coins in to get that potential reward. The anticipation of the potential reward activates the reward system in the brain and keeps people engaged. With respect to social media, it's unpredictable when someone will post, what someone will pose, how many likes a post will get and what comments a post we'll get. It's also unpredictable how the algorithm will adjust, suggested posts for a user. With all of the variability, users continue to engage in anticipation of a reward with an unknown arrival.
Juravich: Talk to me more about that instant gratification. Why do we feel it's so important?
Sperling: In terms of like, you're not sure what's going to happen in that anticipation, that uncertainty, that reward, it's activating the reward center of the brain and when that is activated, it is seeking a reward and it's going keep you using and reinforcing that behavior. And you don't know what's gonna happen and it can be part of your social world too. So it may be people within your social network and you're curious about that, or people outside of it and you are still curious about what's to be posted. And that's very engaging, maybe even more engaging to what may be around you right there, so it's hard to pull away.
Juravich: So social media also causes people to feel left out, you know, the FOMO, the fear of missing out. Let's talk about that with teens especially. How can that affect teens who use the app? They feel like they have to be on it and be engaged and be scrolling to know what's going on.
Sperling: Sure, so passive and other-oriented use, such as scrolling through one's For You page, that can create opportunities for comparison, and these type of use have been associated with depression and anxiety with an even stronger link for those who identify as girls, and girls who engage in other-orientated use also reported reductions in their self-esteem. And in addition, peers become especially important to youth when they reach adolescence, seeing evidence of social exclusion that may negatively impact one's mood and create opportunities for comparison, such as to the people who are invited.
Juravich: So, whenever this does contribute to poor mental health for teens, we were talking earlier about body dysmorphia, to be exact. There's a filter on Instagram where basically you can take any picture of yourself or any video and just make yourself look more beautiful. And the plaintiff in the Meda and YouTube trial that she said that that caused body Morphea for her. Can you talk a little bit about that and how these filters, just the idea of these unrealistic beauty expectations, what does that do for a teen's mental health?
Sperling: Yes. So as mentioned previously, so other oriented use has been associated with reductions in self-esteem for those who identify as girls. And in addition, when adolescent girls in Denmark were shown selfies that had been reshaped and retouched the way that you mentioned, they reported a decreased body image, especially for those who had a tendency to compare themselves to others.
And adolescents are growing at different rates. And, you know, altered and unrealistic photos may distort perceptions of what typical bodies are. In addition, youth look up to others, so what is posted may serve as for what they may strive to obtain. If it's unrealistic information, that's a setup for youth to fail to achieve up to what they look. Plus, everybody's different, so even if it were realistic post, information may not apply to the user. If, it still can feel like a failure nevertheless, though not able to be what is viewed as ideal or the norm. And in turn, the experience can negatively impact one's self-concept and well-being.
Juravich: And you mentioned a couple of times this impacting girls more than boys, basically. Do we know why? Why do girls tend to have more mental health issues when looking at the unrealistic beauty standards on the app?
Sperling: It may also be in terms of some of the content, in terms of also who is retouching and reshaping and what are the messages that they're receiving in terms meaning to make their body sizes smaller. But it's not to say that those who identify as boys are not affected. In fact, like, you know, it's also showing just in terms of, like the, they may be impacted wanting to increase their body size and become more muscular and actually changing how that, you know changing their appearance in that way.
It's just in term of like what messages that they're receiving and that the girls in particular just at that time when they are developing and their bodies tend to, you know they tend to develop a little bit earlier than boys and go through puberty. So it's also in terms of the timing. So research has also shown that boys may be defective later on in adolescence, but maybe girls earlier on, just in terms where they are in development.
Juravich: I would think that, you know, parents or someone who just, you know an outside observer would just say to the girls and the boys for that matter, just to stop using the beauty filters. Don't worry about it. Like how, how do you like, you know, just telling someone to stop, like don't do it, don't use it. Is that even realistic?
Sperling: Right, so I think of also, you know, just in terms of other curriculum where you're like, just don't do it, has not really been an effective strategy, particularly how pervasive, as you mentioned, these platforms are. And so I really think it's important to empower users with information, let them know what the different types of use are and how they've been associated with different mental health impacts.
And then also seeing is believing. And you can also teach them to do self-assessments. So rate your mood before and after you use these platforms. Pay attention to the different types and which one is engaging. And then if you find that you're feeling worse, that might create some inspiration to change your use. Maybe it means curating your newsfeed. So unfollowing people or muting certain posts that make you feel bad about yourself. Maybe you're just using social media as a way to make plans in real life. So if you see restaurants, post specials, and then you send a direct message to a peer, like, let's go try that. That may be a very different experience than seeing people post pictures at birthday parties with touched up bodies and you weren't invited to that.
Juravich: Hmm, do you think social media causes people to interact less or differently with people in person?
Sperling: Research has demonstrated that that definitely is the case with youth. They are having reductions in in-person interactions, even though there haven't been changes in terms of like their homework load and extracurricular activities. It's ironic that they technically are connected online, but yet feeling much more disconnected and there have been higher rates of loneliness and that has been associated with even higher rates of social media use.
Juravich: Yeah, so that can, that's interesting. So that connection. So social media allows us to stay connected to more people. I mean, you can talk to people every day on social media who you don't see, you don't have a chance to see in person. You can have friends from anywhere in the world. But then if you're talking to fewer people in person, I mean do you need to talk to people in-person to have a good stable mental health?
Sperling: Well, the thing is, so research has shown, right, that having these direct conversations with peers can strengthen relationships. They do not supplant in-person interactions, though. So yes, you know, if you have a friend who moves, like that could be a great way, you know, to stay in touch with them and send them direct messages, but also it's important to have live interaction.
So even maybe like a FaceTime call that's not in person, but for someone who's not near you. But for the people who are local, it's also important that you also are having interactions that are in person because the virtual ones that are asynchronous do not plant what the in-person interactions offer.
Juravich: What about the flip side? The people who want thousands of likes, and they want people to see their content. So they're not private, their profile is public, they want their videos or posts to be shared around. Wanting thousands of followers, how does that relate to someone, to their mental health, and do they really need that many people to like them?
Sperling: Yeah. So often when that research is looking at the likes, it's, you know, someone isn't satisfied by a certain number. Like, okay, I feel good now I got these number of likes. And often it's number enough because then you're often comparing yourself to others. Well, how many did this person get? Right. And so it can have this negative downturn.
And then people may also be seeking to fill a void that cannot be filled online. They may be feeling maybe they have got low self-esteem and they're trying to seek validation of other people. But if it's you know, not from like really close, meaningful connections that may not actually help them in that way. So it may be that they're investing energy in this way, but it may not necessarily ever meet the need.
Juravich: Do you see issues with the mass sharing? You know, people who have their account set to public and not private and they don't know people. Do you wish, you know, in your position as a clinical psychologist, do you wish people just kept everything private? Oh
Sperling: Question you know, I think it it depends on how the user makes use of their profile. Like I can think of, you know for people who are in the spotlight have also used their platform for good. You know, whether it's. You know, trying to destigmatize mental illness, for example, make people feel less alone. So I think like, you know the fact that their platform is public and other people could see that maybe perhaps that does some good.
But that doesn't mean that like every public post is doing some good, you know, for the greater community there. So I it does depend on the content. And I think that's why it's also important that we don't say that like social media is all good and it's all bad because it's really nuanced and it depends on the type of use.
Juravich: This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking about social media and mental health, and with us right now we have Dr. Jacqueline Sperling, clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and Jacqueline's going to stay with us, and we're going to talk more about that, the good and the bad of social media in just a moment.
Juravich: This is all sides on 89 7 NPR news. You're listening to All Sides. I'm your host, Amy Juravich. Adam Mossery, Instagram CEO, likened social media addiction to binge watching a TV show. But where binge watching TV usually results in a few hours of lost time, doom scrolling has led to depression, anxiety, and lost lives. We're talking about social media addition and what it means with mental health. And we've been talking with Dr. Jacqueline Sperling, a clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Thanks again for being with us and staying with us, Jacqueline, we appreciate it. Oh, are you there?
Sperling: It's a pleasure to be here. There we go. There we got you. All right.
Juravich: You are also the author of a children's book. It's called "Finding Your Fierce, How to Put Social Anxiety in its Place." Can you talk to me about the connection between social media and social anxiety?
Sperling: Sure, so that can show up in a variety of different ways. So it may be that if someone has social anxiety, they may actually be less inclined to post because they may be worried about judgment and being embarrassed. So it maybe more of a passive user. So same with other people post.
And it may also be that someone has social anxiety, but they may actually pose quite frequently, but they feel like they have to put up a certain facade and have a certain image because they're worried about maybe being seen, the real selves being seen and being judged and not being accepted. So there are different ways where that may show up and it's not one size for everyone.
Juravich: Well, and for many people, but especially younger people, it is hard to get rid of social media completely. Earlier we were talking about just saying, oh, just stop using that. That's not a really constructive way to help someone. And people also want to feel in the loop. They want to know what's happening with friends and what's going on. So what can we do to protect people's mental health with social media without getting rid of it altogether?
Sperling: I think it's really about finding that, let's say sweet spot, but that place that at least doesn't make you feel worse, right? So you know, being informed, learning about the different types of views and how they're associated with different mental health impacts, and then finding out how it impacts you. So you can do an assessment before you do, you use social media, rate your mood on a scale of zero to 10, 10 being the most intense that you can experience emotions, zero not at all.
So maybe you're a seven happy, four worried, three irritated, however you're feeling. And then Pay attention to how you're using these apps, what content that you're seeing, and how you are interacting with them, and then afterward, re-rate your mood. If you find that you are sadder, you're more irritated, you're less happy, if you're worried, then like, huh, maybe how I'm using this is actually making me feel worse. That doesn't mean you're like, well, I'm just not going to use it at all. Because actually, maybe there are some parts of it that actually, you do enjoy and actually don't make you feel worse. But it's really about adjusting your experience that at least doesn't at least mitigates the impact, the negative impact. Yeah, how can you do that? Yeah.
Juravich: No, go ahead. That's what I was just getting at, because I read on a website about you that basically it's called self-monitoring, right? So the tagline was, observe, record and evaluate your actions. So go ahead, tell me about that.
Sperling: And sure. Yeah. So like, you know, if you then can adjust things, so maybe you need you decide, you know what? This person's post made me feel really bad about myself. And so I'm going to mute their posts and their stories. That's an example. Let's say on Instagram, they will never know that you're doing that. You still remain connected them as a connection. You can still send a direct message.
You can also change your mind about meeting that if you decide that their post later don't make you feel bad about yourself, but you can curate your newsfeeder for you page and then you can make it an iterative process. Rerate your mood before and after each time you make these adjustments and then do it until you at least feel like you're not feeling worse maybe there are certain posts that are really important to you such as those for charitable organizations or you know local shops in your community that you want to support or if you belong to a school or workplace institution and they post news stories that are important to Maybe you want to see those, but maybe that's all you see.
Or maybe there are some people like they find that, you know, I see like posts about like baby animals and like that makes me feel really good, but like the stuff about humans does not make me feel really good. So then they curate their newsfeed. And so you do it until at least doesn't make you feel worse. But everyone is different. And then everyone is connected to different people and different profiles. And so it depends on how they may be impacted. And so it's really about developing your for you page in a way that works for you.
Juravich: This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking about social media and mental health with Dr. Jacqueline Sperling, clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Earlier we were talking about the meta and YouTube verdict. A jury basically found that they were guilty of creating an addictive algorithm that caused personal injury to the plaintiff. But, obviously, Metta and YouTube are appealing. They're not going to accept it. Obviously, they disagree with the jury's verdict.
So that means that they're not gonna necessarily suddenly change their algorithm due to this one jury verdict, and there's lots more cases coming. So do you think we need the government to intervene? Like, if the companies aren't going to make social media a safer place, does the government need to ask them to or make them?
Sperling: So I'm not actually permitted to actually speak about just in terms of whether or not the government could intervene, but I am all about empowering individuals with evidence-based information. So although we wouldn't necessarily, oh, the ONS has to be on the user, but for right now, given the way that the platforms are designed, I think it's also really important to disseminate this information to the community so that they know how the different types of use may impact their wellbeing and so that can then make informed decisions. For the meantime.
Juravich: All right, so if we're not gonna talk about if the government can intervene, what about parents intervening? If we're talking about teens on social media. There are parental controls, so what do you think parents need to do to help their teens?
Sperling: I think it's really important you know kids are not just given car keys once they turn a certain age and say oh you're of age to drive so you should drive you know they also need to learn to drive under supervision so I think you know as someone starts to get older and they start to be above age to be able to use these devices. It can be really helpful to have a shared review process as a parent, and you want to make sure that you're not hovering or shaming or criticizing so that the teens aren't going to shut down and they're going to be less likely to share, but you can be curious and open and ask some questions like, oh, what inspired you to post that or what do you make of that poster?
How can you tell if this is misinformation or disinformation? Make it an interactive experience, schedule a frequency that works with your family, whether it's every night, every two nights, or weekly, or however you want do it to go through the content with them together. And so that can help them learn how to use these platforms in a way that doesn't necessarily make them feel worse. It also creates a stopgap because youth's brain are not fully developed.
And if you think of like going back to a car, they get the gas pedals before they get the brakes, their impulse control is not fully formed. And also in adolescence, you're only just starting to develop abstract thought. And it's a very abstract thought to think what I post here is going to be a permanent digital fingerprint. You have to think like, Oh, when I post to her, I have to be comfortable having it up on a billboard for the world to see. And that can be a very abstract thought. And also for people who don't have breaks, then they may not be able to think through that process before they actually post something. However. Teens are usually able to say, would I want my parents to see this? No. And so they may think, you know what? I'm not gonna post this. And so having that shared review process may actually slow them down to help them think like, what should I post? What's an effective post here? Why would I do this? And to think more critically about the process.
Juravich: I love the idea of the parents and the teens making it a more collaborative thing, you know, checking in with each other, kind of like taking your teen on driving lessons. I appreciate that analogy. But then there's also the dynamics where the teen will hide things from the parents. Like they won't actually, I've heard of teenagers who have like a second secret Instagram account. So there's the one that they show their parents and then there the one where they do the other things and their parents had no idea.
Unfortunately sometimes until it's too late and they learn about it from friends, you know, after a tragedy has happened. So what do you have to say, what advice would you give to parents who have that extreme that they're dealing with where they don't know what they don't know?
Sperling: That can be very scary and unsettling. And I think if you set the tone early on that you are open and you can be supportive in a non-judgmental, a non shaming way, you're not gonna be like, don't do that. You know, that's not okay. Then perhaps that opens the door for them to be open with you. And if you start early on, then you have this open communication in a way that you're just there to help them learn and grow.
And also, you're also helping them understand the the possible negative consequences of them actually having, you know, alternative posts. And there are parental controls, too. You know, the parents, you know, typically are the ones who purchase these devices and pay for these plans. And so there are different controls that they can have and put into place. And there are different websites will actually break it down by specific devices so that parents can look at how do I adjust the controls there. But I also like to give you the chance of agency and give them a chance to show you that they don't necessarily need all of these controls. If you can actually have this shared review process and actually have them show you that that you can use it effectively and safely with your review, then if not, then you can start adding on some more controls and give them some more guardrails.
Juravich: Sometimes I feel like the parental controls are like unnecessarily difficult to navigate. So, and I don't know that I, you know, to give the company the benefit of the doubt, maybe they don't do it on purpose, maybe they do, who knows, but ever since this verdict came out about Meta and YouTube, I anecdotally have seen more and more ads about parental controls. So Meta is doubling down and trying to remind parents that there are parental controls and you know you need to implement them. What do you think of that? And I don't know if it's just like smoke and mirrors or if I just happen to be noticing the ads more and they've always been there. Oh, there are definitely more prevalent. Yeah, yeah. So do you, so are the companies trying to basically say, parents, this is your fault?
Sperling: I wonder, I don't know for sure, but I wonder because of all the spotlight to say like, oh no, we're doing things, we are trying to make it safer for kids because I saw that there was an article that was posted to say that now Instagram will alert parents if there's any content about self-harming or suicidal ideation and so parents will get an alert that way. So they're trying to say, we now try to make teens' accounts safe, right? We have these different.
Guardrails in place. So I'm not sure if it's in reaction to that to actually show that, oh, this is what we're doing to try to make these safer. That being said, that doesn't necessarily make it a benign experience because we were talking about previously, even just examples of social exclusions or people filtering their pictures can have detrimental impacts on people's wellbeing. So, I think that's also something to factor in.
Juravich: Can you talk a little bit about addictive behavior? You know, because people realize social media and doom scrolling isn't good for them. And they want to stop doing it, but they still find themselves doing it. And so, but it's very, it reminds me of, I know smoking is bad for me, but I am addicted to tobacco, right? And so I keep doing it and it's really hard to quit. Can you about, I mean, is that the same like the social media addiction is that are we going to be just continuously hearing more and more about that?
Sperling: You know, I think we are seeing, you know, evidence of some problematic use. You know we're gonna think about like, is it getting to the point where it interferes with one's life or it's taking them away from other activities? So are they are choosing to be on these devices instead of having in-person interactions or if it's for youth, like doing their homework or if its an adult, like getting their work done. Right?
You know what is it that they're not doing because they are spending all this time on social media instead? Like that's where you're noticing it's becoming a problem and you feel like. You can't stop and it's very hard to do so. Or even you're doing it, even though it's making you feel worse, right? That's analogous to someone who may be using substances, like still using even though they may have negative consequences. I think when you start doing these assessments and realizing the negative impact they may have that may then give some motivation for change.
You can also have some things that actually help you get off. So maybe like scheduling some plans in real life or even just like a FaceTime day or phone day at like 7.30 PM. Because then you like you have to get off because you have those plans So maybe you know scheduling some way to have accountability can help you get off in that way and help adjust your behavior but it may be also like require starting small and then building upon there and remembering that it's not necessarily the, you know, the amount of time per se that's associated with these negative impact. It's how you use it. And to a certain extent, if you're using it all day and not doing what you need do then that's also problematic.
Juravich: Well, I want to thank you so much for your time today. We've been talking about social media and mental health with Dr. Jacqueline Sperling, clinical psychologist and assistant professor at the Harvard Medical School. Thank you for joining us today, Jacqueline.
Sperling: Thank you so much for having me.
Juravich: And thank you for spending extra time with us. We appreciate that as well.
Sperling: Oh, it's a pleasure. Thank you.
Juravich: And this has been All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. Be sure, if you missed any part of today's show, you can listen at our website, www.WOSU.org slash All Sides. Subscribe to the podcast. Every episode is available in our mobile app. I wanna say thanks to our staff, producers Marcus Charleston and Erin Esmont Rabinowitz. Student producers is Ahuk, Colin Simpson and Brianna Fortunet. And our student producer from Denison University, Kiara Burson. Our high school student producer is Henry Allen. Video production by The Ohio Channel, board operation by Chris Johnston and Cameron Howard. This has been All Sides on 89.7 NPR News.