DR MAX: Why young people under 18 should no longer be allowed to use social media

If I told you that I had developed a product that had useful applications, but was linked to an increase in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm and a range of other behavioural and emotional problems, wouldn’t you think twice about using it?

If I were to say that I want to give it to your children, perhaps you could say something more forceful about that.

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

Those of us who work in mental health are all too used to seeing the terrible, negative effects these apps have on people’s well-being, especially children.

In recent years, there has been a lot more awareness about mental health issues, but when it comes to social media, we bury our heads in the sand.

Now, despite mounting pressure and threats of legislation, some social media platforms are finally taking action – albeit belatedly.

This comes shortly after the tragic deaths of several people, including 14-year-old Molly Russell, who committed suicide after being confronted with a flood of dark and depressing messages on social media.

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

They must also approve all new followers. Children ages 13-15 can only adjust these settings by adding a parent or guardian to their account.

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

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

But it is especially a problem for vulnerable young minds who are still developing and have to deal with all kinds of other issues, such as schoolwork, hormones, changes in their bodies and finding their place in the world.

The new teen accounts could offer sensitive content controls to prevent the platform’s “algorithms” from recommending potentially harmful material, such as material that could encourage self-harm or anorexia.

But who exactly defines ‘sensitive material’? Much of the harmful content online is far too nuanced to easily filter out.

While parents can see who their children are messaging, the new account does nothing to prevent children from accessing the insidious stream of misinformation and unrepresentative images of “perfect” lives and manipulated bodies and faces that can trigger such deep feelings of fear and inadequacy.

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

The new restrictions do nothing to prevent children from spending their lives online, where they are constantly bombarded with images and content that can affect their concentration and attention.

I think it’s no coincidence that the explosion of ADHD cases has occurred at the same time that social media has become ubiquitous. The result is a generation that can’t tolerate boredom or frustration – even for a few minutes – thanks to a toxic diet of constant social media stimulation.

I am deeply concerned about the damage we are doing to the minds of young people living in this online dystopia now, let alone the problems we are piling up in the future.

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

I believe the same is needed here, with a ban on anyone under 16 (ideally 18).

Action to protect young people from these dangers will not come from the social media giants themselves, given their obvious self-interests.

So it has to come from legislators and from all of us, as responsible adults.

Pharmacists have voted to ‘work to the rules’, as have GPs, in a row over funding. I fear it won’t be long before other NHS professions are demanding pay rises too. That could spell the end of the NHS. I hope not.

Stacey is right: family comes first

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

Good for her that she can still make huge amounts of money. But even for those of us who can’t increase our income without actually putting in the hours, I think it’s still worth thinking about how to prioritize family time over work.

Of course, balancing a career and personal life is never easy. But research often shows that people regret not spending time with their loved ones the most at the end of their lives.

Despite studies showing time and time again that more money does not make us happier, it is still tempting to prioritize it. Once we have the basics in life covered, the real source of satisfaction for the vast majority of people is their relationships with other people.

Maybe it’s time to consider whether the choices we make actually make us happy – or just make us feel like we should be happy. There’s an important difference.

Right-wingers are often labeled as indifferent, but that may not be fair, according to a new study. Dutch researchers discovered that people with more conservative views have larger amygdalae.

While this part of the brain is involved in perceiving threats (which may explain why conservatives focus on safety), it also plays a role in emotion and empathy. I’ve found that many people with right-wing views are nice people, but believe that we should all take responsibility for our actions.

I see this as an optimistic attitude, rooted in the belief that people, if left to their own devices, are essentially self-reliant and do not need any support to survive.