There is only a small link between social media use and well-being—and even that partly comes down to genetics. So say Dutch researchers after examining data from more 6,000 people on a Netherlands twin registry.

They also found that more social media use wasn’t always linked to negative traits. For instance, “flourishing was positively associated with having more social media accounts” and with more time spent on social media, they write in a paper for Behavior Genetics. “Although strong claims are often made on the negative effects of social media use on wellbeing” (here they point to Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation), “these are not substantiated in the current study.”

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth’s sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

Overall, correlations between social media habits and measures of well-being were modest—“statistically significant, yet small,” write the researchers. And there is evidence that those associations “are partly driven by overlapping genetic influences.”’

“We shouldn’t let headlines like ‘social media is toxic’ distract us from what really matters: each person’s unique background and current state of life,” lead author Selim Sametoğlu told the Max Planck Society.

Beyond ‘Either “Good” or “Bad” for Everyone’

Sametoğlu’s findings suggest that there’s no one-size-fits-all reaction to time spent on social media, nor a universal benefit to staying away from it. They cut against “zombie bite” theories of social media effects—in which mere exposure to certain content or algorithms will inevitably produce the same results—and against public policies based on the idea that broadly protecting people from such exposure will cure social or psychological ills.

“Our research helps move the conversation away from simplistic claims that social media is either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for everyone,” Sametoğlu told the Max Planck Society. “We show that the effects are modest, and more importantly, at least partly shaped by individual genetic differences.”

Sametoğlu’s team analyzed data from 6,492 people in the Netherlands—all of them twins, with some part of identical pairs and some of fraternal pairs. They ranged in age from 16 to 89 years old, with an average age of 35; 71 percent were women.

The data set included information on their social media habits—including number of platforms used, total time spent on social media, and frequency of posting—as well their mental health and well-being, measured via questions covering anxiety and depression symptoms, life satisfaction, happiness, flourishing, and quality of life.

By studying twins, the researchers hoped to unravel how much social media habits and their effects might be influenced by genetic factors. More similarities between identical twins than between fraternal twins generally could indicate that genetics plays a big role.

And indeed, Sametoğlu’s team found evidence that genes influence social media habits. “Social media use was heritable with estimates as high as 72% when measured through time spent daily on social media,” states their paper. That means genes may explain up tot 72 percent of the variation in time spent on social media. They also found that genetic factors could explain up to 54 percent of the variance in social media posting frequency.

Overall, posting more frequently on fewer platforms was associated with lower well-being than being passively engaged on a greater number of platforms.

Genes and Context Matter

“Simply blaming social media use, or restricting access to platforms, won’t solve our well-being and mental health challenges,” said Sametoğlu. “Instead, we need to focus on the individual—because genes, context, and support all matter.”

This seems so simple that it should be common sense. But at this point, a lot of forces are working against common sense when it comes to technology.

There are academics and pundits who have built their careers on doomsaying about social media, and who are loathe to admit any evidence that counteracts their chosen narrative.

There are politicians who perhaps genuinely want to help but can’t control things like genes or life circumstances, and so instead seize on what they can control: the regulatory environment around online platforms. There are also politicians and other authorities who want more power over the internet generally—to spy, to censor, to control political narratives—and seize on the toxic-social-media narrative as a pretext for those other aims.

And there are countless people who seemingly need to believe that tech companies are to blame for either their own problems or various worrisome trends they see around them. They can’t believe that so many people might genuinely have radically different values than their own, so they tell themselves that online misinformation or algorithms are the real culprit. They can’t believe that their guy lost (or the other guy won), so it must be the nefarious influence of big tech. They find it too convoluted—or politically unpalatable—to consider all the complicated factors that might be fostering anxiety, atomization, etc., so they settle on something that’s simple. They can’t admit that they’re making bad choices about how much time or emotional energy to invest in social media, so it must be that algorithms render free will impossible.

Yes, individuals can genuinely struggle with social media. But we need to admit that these problems stem from a complex mix of individual factors—including genetics, life circumstances, and more—and as such must be addressed at the individual level, not with grand interventions designed under the assumption that everyone reacts the same way to technology.

One-size-fits-all solutions unfairly punish people who aren’t problematic users and the companies who run these platforms, and they unnecessarily restrict free markets and free speech. Studies like this one suggest they’ll also fail at resolving the underlying issues they’re meant to solve.

---

More Sex & Tech News

• A federal court issued a blow to Colorado’s law requiring warning labels on social media. “Today’s decision is a victory for free speech,” said Paul Taske of the tech industry trade group NetChoice. “The government cannot force private businesses to act as mouthpieces for its preferred view.”

• A young adult graphic novel re-imagining* Little Women* with Jo questioning her sexuality has been removed from elementary- and middle-school shelves in Benton, Arkansas, “after a parent complained it was ‘grooming’ children by portraying LGBTQ+ characters,” the Arkansas Times reports.

• The Children Harmed by AI Technology (CHAT) Act won’t protect kids, but it could break the internet, suggest the Libertas Institute’s Devin McCormick and Tom Pandolfi.

• “The federal government is fanning Americans’ hysteria about China in an attempt to ban the sale of a particular company’s wireless routers,” argues Reason’s Joe Lancaster.

Today’s Image

Phoenix | 2018 (ENB/Reason)