Opinion
Big Tech on the witness stand: Are algorithms responsible for the mental health crisis?
The most significant contribution of the ongoing trial may ultimately not be the verdict itself, but the shift in public discourse it has generated.
In a courtroom in Los Angeles, one of the most unusual legal proceedings in recent years is currently unfolding in the technology sector. Hundreds of families, alongside school districts, are suing major technology companies including Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, arguing that the social media platforms they developed were deliberately designed to maximize engagement and extend user time on the platform, while disregarding the potential consequences for the mental health of young users.
The companies, for their part, argue that there is no scientific basis for defining social media as addictive in the clinical sense, and that depression and other mental health disorders are complex phenomena shaped by a combination of personal, familial and social factors.
The trial is taking place against a broader global trend of restricting children’s use of social media and smartphones within educational systems. Australia has passed legislation requiring platforms to prevent users under the age of sixteen from opening accounts, while in Europe and several Scandinavian countries the focus has been on limiting phone use during the school day. In the United States as well, many states and school districts have adopted similar policies.
If US courts ultimately accept the argument that digital product design can constitute a harmful factor in mental health, the decision could reshape how digital platforms are designed, regulated and priced.
The Public Debate Is Too Simple for a Complex Reality
A growing body of research points to an association between intensive or problematic social media use and symptoms of depression and anxiety. However, researchers repeatedly emphasize that this relationship is not necessarily causal. In many cases, preexisting psychological distress leads to increased social media use rather than the other way around.
The central question, therefore, is not whether social media creates depression, but how it affects individuals who are already vulnerable. This is where the real complexity begins.
Social Media as an Amplification Mechanism
One of the emerging insights in the literature is that prolonged exposure to filtered lives, popularity metrics and constant feedback does not necessarily create depression, but may intensify well documented cognitive patterns associated with depressive thinking. Social comparison, fear of missing out and intrusive thoughts are not new psychological phenomena. What has changed is the frequency and intensity of exposure.
In this sense, social media functions less as a direct cause of illness and more as an accelerator or trigger.
A large longitudinal study published in Nature found that the impact of social media on mental well being varies significantly depending on age and prior emotional state, and identified sensitive developmental periods during adolescence in which increased use was associated with lower life satisfaction in subsequent years.
Large scale studies, including data analyses conducted at the University of Oxford, have similarly found that screen time explains only a small portion of variation in mental health outcomes, while sleep quality, social relationships and a sense of belonging are significantly stronger predictors.
The current debate often attributes near deterministic power to technology, as if it were a mechanism that directly produces depression. This is an appealing narrative because it offers a clear target for blame. Reality, however, is less convenient.
Rising rates of depression in many countries began before the widespread adoption of social media. Structural changes in the nature of work, economic instability, the erosion of traditional social frameworks and increasing loneliness are broader processes at play. Social media did not create these trends, but operates within them and amplifies some of their effects.
The current trial attempts to address an important question, yet it cannot resolve the deeper social issue: why, in an era of unprecedented connectivity, feelings of loneliness continue to grow. Whereas experiences of comparison or rejection were once limited to physical social circles, they are now continuously present through screens, comments and metrics such as follower counts.
The most significant contribution of the ongoing trial may ultimately not be the verdict itself, but the shift in public discourse it has generated. The danger in the current debate lies in its simplicity. Declaring technology solely responsible ignores the complexity of depression. Declaring it entirely harmless ignores the profound ways in which digital environments have reshaped how individuals experience themselves and others.
The evidence emerging from both research and lived experience suggests that the truth lies somewhere in between. Social media does not create modern depression, but it does change how it spreads, persists and, at times, intensifies.
The authors are co-founders of NeuroKaire.
