DR MAX: Why below 18s ought to be banned from utilizing social media

If I told you I’d developed a product that, although it had some uses, was linked to increased anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm and a range of other behavioural and emotional problems, you’d think twice about using it, wouldn’t you?

If I then said I wanted to give it to your children, you might have something stronger to say about it.

But these are precisely the consequences of social media, and yet for years we have been giving our children unfettered access to it.

Those of us working in mental health have become all too accustomed to seeing the terrible ill effects of these apps on people’s wellbeing – especially children’s.

Awareness of mental health issues has improved immensely in recent years – yet where social media is concerned, we’ve buried our heads in the sand.

Now finally, under mounting pressure and the imminent threat of legislation, some social media platforms are – belatedly – taking action.

This comes in the wake of several tragic deaths including that of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life after being exposed to a stream of dark and depressing content on social media.

Tomorrow, Instagram is launching ‘teen accounts’, which give parents more control over their children’s behaviour on its platform. Currently children must be at least 13 to have an account. Under the new restrictions, privacy settings will be turned on by default for all under 18s, meaning their content can’t be seen by people who don’t ‘follow’ them.

It will also require them to approve all new followers. ­Children aged 13 to 15 will be able to adjust these settings only by adding a parent or guardian to their account.

But while this is all welcome and long overdue, it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.

That’s because privacy settings are only part of a much wider problem. Far more dangerous, in my opinion, is the content on these sites and the fact that the platforms are accused of fuelling addictive use. This is a problem for users of all ages, of course.

But it’s particularly an issue for vulnerable young minds who are still developing and trying to deal with a host of other issues, including school work, hormones, changes to their bodies and working out their place in the world. 

The new teen accounts may provide controls on sensitive content to prevent the platform’s ‘algorithms’ from recommending potentially harmful material – such as anything that might encourage self harm or anorexia for instance.

But precisely who is defining ‘sensitive material’? A lot of damaging content online is far too nuanced to be easily filtered out.

And while parents can see who their children are messaging, the new account won’t stop children accessing the insidious drip-drip of misinformation and ­unrepresentative images of ­’perfect’ lives and air-brushed bodies and faces that can promote such profound feelings of anxiety and inadequacy.

And that’s before I mention the wacky diets, clean eating, unrealistic body images or even plastic surgery procedures all glorified on these platforms. The list goes on and on. 

The new restrictions also do absolutely nothing to stop children from living their lives online, constantly bombarded by images and content that may affect their concentration and attention.

I suggest that it’s no ­coincidence that the explosion of cases of ADHD has occurred just as social media has become ubiquitous. The result is a generation who cannot tolerate boredom or ­frustration – even for a few ­minutes – thanks to a toxic diet of constant stimulation from social media.

I profoundly worry about the harm and damage we are now causing to the minds of young people who are continually submerged in this online dystopia, let alone what problems we may be storing up for the future.

The Australian government has announced it will introduce a minimum age for teenagers using social media.

The same is needed here in my view with a ban on anyone under the age of 16 (ideally 18).

Action to protect young people from these dangers won’t come from the social media giants themselves – given the obvious vested interests.

So it needs to come from ­legislators and all of the rest of us, as responsible adults.

Pharmacists have balloted to see if they should ‘work to rule’, like GPs, in a row over funding. I fear it won’t be long before other professions in the NHS start demanding pay rises, too. That could spell the end of the NHS. I do hope not. 

Stacey’s right: family comes first 

It was recently revealed that TV presenter Stacey Solomon has earned more than £4 million since announcing she was stepping back from her work to prioritise her family.

Good for her that she can still earn vast sums. But even for those of us who can’t increase our earnings without actually putting in the hours, I think it’s still worth thinking about how to prioritise family time over work. 

Balancing a career and personal life is never easy, of course. But not spending time with loved ones is often shown by research to be the number one thing people most regret at the end of their life.

Despite studies showing time and time again that more money doesn’t make us happier, it’s still so tempting to prioritise it. Once we have secured the basics in life, the real source of contentment for the vast majority of people is their relationships with other people. 

Perhaps it’s time to consider whether the choices we make are actually making us happy – or just making us feel as though we should be happy. There’s an important difference.

Right-wingers are often stereotyped as uncaring, yet this may not be fair, according to a new study. Dutch researchers found that those with more conservative views have a larger amygdala.

While this part of the brain is involved in threat perception (possibly explaining why Conservatives tend to focus on security) it also plays a role in emotion and empathy. I have found many with views on the Right are kind people but believe that we should all take responsibility for our actions. 

In my view this is an optimistic attitude, rooted in a belief that people, left to their own devices, are fundamentally capable, and don’t need support to get by.