Is it time to update the social media regulations?

According to 2023 data from Comparitech, the average person spends 2 hours and 31 minutes on social media each day. Americans average 2 hours and 16 minutes, while Brazilians are the biggest consumers, spending 3 hours and 46 minutes daily.

On a weekly basis, the average person spends 17 hours and 37 minutes on social media, which is akin to a part-time job. This duration is increasing annually. Thus, on average, we dedicate one year of our lives to social media for every 6.5 years lived, given that we are awake for 16 hours each day.

Social media's impact isn't confined to the time we're actively using it; its effects persist long after we've put our phones away. For example, if we come across upsetting news, it can continue to affect our mood and disrupt our daily routines. Unlike computers, which can switch tasks instantly, we humans struggle to change our mental state so swiftly. Negative experiences can resonate throughout our day.

The constant stream of news, especially during times of global crisis, can significantly strain mental health. Historically, humans were not exposed to such a rapid pace of changing information, which can lead to feelings of anxiety, stress, and overload. Managing the intake of news and finding ways to reduce media consumption can help alleviate some of these negative impacts on mental health. You can read more about how media overload is hurting mental health in this article by the American Psychological Association.

Social media algorithms prioritize content based on user engagement, relevance, and timeliness, aiming to keep users on the platform longer by showing them posts they're likely to interact with. Research and user behavior suggest that people may click more on negative news due to a psychological tendency known as "negativity bias", where negative events have a greater impact on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive events. This bias can make bad news more engaging or attention-grabbing to users, influencing what they click on social media platforms.

It's well-known that social media companies generate their profits from advertising revenue, which directly depends on the number of users and the duration of their stay on the platform. This creates a peculiar scenario where these companies have a financial incentive to engage users with content they are likely to interact with. Considering our tendency towards negativity bias, this often means we encounter more negative news than positive. Consequently, there's a direct correlation between the financial gains of these platforms and the mental health of their users.

So how can we address this issue?

One way to lessen the impact of social media is to actively manage our consumption. This can be achieved by limiting our usage time through tracking apps or by scheduling specific times of the day for engaging with social media. However, this requires effort, much like adhering to a mental diet. Considering the fast pace of modern life, it's understandable that finding the time and motivation for this can be challenging. Moreover, despite these efforts, we still end up consuming content curated by social media companies.

Another strategy to reduce the negative effects of social media is to modify its algorithms. In this context, regulations could prove beneficial. Despite my usual hesitance towards regulations, it's clear that social media companies have mismanaged these algorithms for too long. The problem is that we consumers can’t see how irresponsible they are acting. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical scenario as a thought experiment: imagine if a tobacco company operated like social media platforms. It would be akin to being offered a cigarette upon hearing bad news, or a barista suggesting a cigarette to complement your coffee, with this pattern recurring in every aspect of your daily life. Equally concerning is the exposure of many teenagers and children to social media. Unlike adults, they lack the life experience to differentiate between the curated feeds of social media and reality. They may not realize that life is far more positive than what is often depicted online. For instance, you might not share every pleasant dining experience on social media, but if you encounter a particularly disappointing meal, you're more inclined to post about it.

Unfortunately, I don’t know any simple solution to this problem, but it's clear there's a real need to reduce the negative effects of social media on our mental health. I think new regulations should be put in place that will force companies to iteratively improve their algorithms.

Here are a few naive suggestions:

• Set a limit on the proportion of the feed that is made up of negative news. For example, if analytics indicate that a user is inclined to engage with negative content 70% of the time, reducing the share of such content to 30% could help balance the exposure to both negative and positive news.

• Stop incentivizing the usage of sensational headlines. Instead, develop mechanisms to ensure headlines accurately reflect the content.

• Encourage creators to produce more positive content by promoting it more widely and making it just as effective as other types of content.

• Give users more control over what they see by allowing them to set filters based on content type, source, or even sentiment. This could empower users to tailor their social media experience to be more positive and less overwhelming.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the banning of any type of content. I believe that any tool capable of restricting our freedom could eventually be exploited by malicious actors. What I am suggesting is that we consider developing mechanisms to mitigate the negative impacts of social media on our mental health.