Social networking sites can't shoulder the responsibility for our kids' mental health

Social media companies have become the latest target of public hand-wringing, even prompting Instagram’s head to agree to meet the health secretary, signalling a greater willingness to engage than the platform’s owner Facebook has ever shown before to talk with politicians. Probably a smart move if your company’s products are to be scapegoated for all the ills of our young people.




Cases like the suicide of young Molly Russell, 14, are emotive and difficult. I can understand her Father’s assertion that Instagram helped kill his daughter, having unearthed her involvement in groups encouraging suicide, complete with guides and appalling imagery. It’s only natural to ask how on earth we can make sure tragedies like this never happen again. The sad reality is that, if we turn our focus to those social media companies themselves, we can’t, and we won’t.

We can always sit on our lofty perches and demand that the companies do more and more, and I’ve heard plenty of that this week. But social media is far to big, and far too multinational for the companies to do anything more than scratch the surface, however much or little good will they have to improve things. We all know of the routine use of Facebook, for instance, by kids under 16, making a nonsense of its age limits. We all know that if one Twitter account is suspended for trolling, it’s a matter of a few steps to set up a new one and start all over again.

It is society that has to police social media because the amount of content is simply too vast. That’s not to mention the fact that the concept of social networking relies on our ability to make it our own and express ourselves as we wish, to give it purpose and significance. If we start banning content because of its perceived impact on vulnerable people in society, there is a case for banning everything. It’s not hard to imagine that the photos and status updates of friends having a great time, compound the loneliness and isolation of the depressed. It’s not hard to imagine that the bear pit of Twitter upsets the sensitivities of some, who may be overwhelmed by the often aggressive and combative nature of debate. But if social media doesn’t allow us the freedom of speech we ought to expect in a democracy, people will simply move on to new platforms. Once it was MSN, BBM and My Space. Who even remembers these now? I am told that Facebook is becoming increasingly less popular with young adults, so it’s not hard to see why the company snapped up WhatsApp and Instagram to survive. It’s a fickle old business.

It’s easy to pretend that social media is something new and something alien, but at its core is human interaction. In a cruel and uncaring world, what is needed is the timeless phenomenon of resilience. It’s not new that people develop mental health problems, or that some find resilience harder than others. A small number have always made the tragic decision to try and take their own lives. Bottom line: 100 other kids might have seen the same imagery that Molly Russell did, and recognised it as morbid and unfortunate. Whatever is going on in these kids’ lives, social media isn’t making them make this terrible decision. That’s why parents have to be strict, and assert their right to know what their child is getting up to online, however unpopular. That’s why schools need to address social media and enter dialogue with kids about the good and the bad of this technology. That’s why we all need to better understand the psychology of online spaces and how people interact with them. Above all, that’s why we need to make the focus of mental health about empowering our kids to stay well, to roll with the punches life throws at us, and to form a healthy and balance view of what they see online.

Who can really say if Instagram helped kill Molly Russell, or any other teenager? Whether they were influenced by social media, or whether social media simply provided them a vehicle to find something they already knew they wanted, is a chicken and egg question. What seems much clearer to me, is that if our response is to look at bans and restrictions placed on social media, we’re on a path that will fail more young people. We’re locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. For years now, children have learned about the dangers of grooming online, because as hard as we try, policing the internet is a constant battle and part of protecting them means making sure they are aware that people operate online who wish to do them harm. We need that same approach now to content that indulges those with an unfortunate interest in self-harm, suicide and other such subjects. We have to start by accepting that good will isn’t the problem here. It’s simply the case that social networking sites can’t shoulder the responsibility of our kids’ mental health.