Internet Use Does Not Appear To Harm Mental Health, Oxford Study Finds (ft.com) 80
A study of more than 2 million people's internet use found no "smoking gun" for widespread harm to mental health from online activities such as browsing social media and gaming, despite widely claimed concerns that mobile apps can cause depression and anxiety. From a report: Researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute, who said their study was the largest of its kind, said they found no evidence to support "popular ideas that certain groups are more at risk" from the technology. However, Andrew Przybylski, professor at the institute -- part of the University of Oxford -- said that the data necessary to establish a causal connection was "absent" without more co-operation from tech companies. If apps do harm mental health, only the companies that build them have the user data that could prove it, he said.
"The best data we have available suggests that there is not a global link between these factors," said Przybylski, who carried out the study with Matti Vuorre, a professor at Tilburg University. Because the "stakes are so high" if online activity really did lead to mental health problems, any regulation aimed at addressing it should be based on much more "conclusive" evidence, he added. "Global Well-Being and Mental Health in the Internet Age" was published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science on Tuesday. In their paper, Przybylski and Vuorre studied data on psychological wellbeing from 2.4 million people aged 15 to 89 in 168 countries between 2005 and 2022, which they contrasted with industry data about growth in internet subscriptions over that time, as well as tracking associations between mental health and internet adoption in 202 countries from 2000-19.
"The best data we have available suggests that there is not a global link between these factors," said Przybylski, who carried out the study with Matti Vuorre, a professor at Tilburg University. Because the "stakes are so high" if online activity really did lead to mental health problems, any regulation aimed at addressing it should be based on much more "conclusive" evidence, he added. "Global Well-Being and Mental Health in the Internet Age" was published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science on Tuesday. In their paper, Przybylski and Vuorre studied data on psychological wellbeing from 2.4 million people aged 15 to 89 in 168 countries between 2005 and 2022, which they contrasted with industry data about growth in internet subscriptions over that time, as well as tracking associations between mental health and internet adoption in 202 countries from 2000-19.
Just like (Score:2, Insightful)
Smoking and lead in gasoline were fine... right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, especially at the same time.
Re:Just like (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is why studies, science and facts are almost useless at convincing people, if they go against what people believe they will be discounted almost immediately.
Please note I am not making a comment on the validity of this study, I frankly have no idea and have better things to do with my life than go into its details to have real idea of its merit. Even if I did why would anybody believe me more than the study.
That being said if you read the summary the outcome of the study was its inconclusive we don't have enough data.
said that the data necessary to establish a causal connection was "absent" without more co-operation from tech companies
Oxford study is BS (Score:4, Informative)
Absolutely there is harm. There's good too, but there definitely is harm. Self-reinforcing extremism through insular echo-chambers, the continuation of bullying from the real world to the digital world regardless of location, and all sorts of other issues that simply did not exist before the widespread consumer Internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oxford study is BS (Score:2)
Unlike most Europeans, Oxford can tell the difference between the Internet and the Web. Playing mortal kombat with a friend in Vietnam isn't going to damage your mental health.
Re: (Score:1)
Unlike most Europeans, Oxford can tell the difference between the Internet and the Web. Playing mortal kombat with a friend in Vietnam isn't going to damage your mental health.
Vietnam is a communist country. If you have a friend there then you must like communists. Therefore you've become mentally ill by interacting with communists.
Now you are a Marxist and need to be re-educated. That is, if you live in the Land of the Free. If you're somewhere else then its no problem, just carry on.
Re:Oxford study is BS (Score:4)
The internet does not of itself cause mental illness. It does provide a method for the mentally ill to broadcast their problems to the world.
It also provides support systems for the mentally ill that are the exact opposite of the type of support they need to set aside or develop coping mechanisms for their illness.
Thirty years ago, every village had an idiot. The internet has allowed those idiots to congregate somewhere, compare their batshit insane theories, develop them into a common narrative, and regurgitate them into the public discourse. So? Thirty years ago you might see a person or three per city walking the streets with a signboard screaming about the end-times. Now we have whole throngs of people clinging to theories that make a critical thinker cringe, yet these groups are utterly convinced, through self-actuated group-think brainwashing, that their ignorance is ABSOLUTELY as valid as our evidence and facts. Jewish space lasers. Weather control. 9/11 was a digital creation and never happened. Trump has been orchestrating everything on the world-stage for decades now, and is about to complete his plan to become god-emperor for life. These are batshit insane conspiracy theories that may have been laughed at a few years back, yet there are entire armies of people that hold these beliefs as semi-religious in nature.
Perhaps we should have shown some concern for our mentally ill before we sprung the information age on humanity? It's an amplifier of all things, even mental illness. And where we are today? I don't know that there's a fix for it. Not without some serious self-discovery for our entire species. And too many of us are entrenched in STOPPING self-discovery at all costs. Self-discovery is hard, sometimes dangerous work, and can often lead to very uncomfortable moments of epiphany. And nobody wants to be uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather control
They get some points for that, cloud seeding is an actual real thing that governments sometimes do, easy to look up and check. But HAARP weather control and orgone rays are bullshit.
I should have added in that the control mechanism for the satellites that actually control the weather is located in Alaska for these folks, because inaccessibility is part of the sell. It's quite the story they've developed. Pity they weren't focused enough to turn it into sellable fiction instead of using it to create yet more angst among themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
STOPPING self-discovery
Shit cost money yo
Re: (Score:2)
STOPPING self-discovery
Shit cost money yo
It costs money, or time, or both. But we need to soak that time up by worshipping at the Disney/WB/Turner/Media altar, so we can distract ourselves from how little meaning it all has at the moment. Meaning through fantasy. Seems vaguely familiar.
Re: (Score:3)
The question is how do you know your not the idiot, How do I know that I an not the idiot?
As you stated:
yet these groups are utterly convinced, through self-actuated group-think brainwashing, that their ignorance is ABSOLUTELY as valid
I got it, (I'm/your) right every body else is wrong problem solved /sarcasm.
But continue calling the groups you oppose idiots, that sounds like the best way to convince them they are wrong. /sarcasm.
I will continue to point my space lazer at you /joking its currently pointed at Gaza.
Please note: I think all the things you said you think are just stupid, I agree seem stupid to me as well. However things li
Re: (Score:2)
The question is how do you know your not the idiot, How do I know that I an not the idiot?
As you stated:
yet these groups are utterly convinced, through self-actuated group-think brainwashing, that their ignorance is ABSOLUTELY as valid
I got it, (I'm/your) right every body else is wrong problem solved /sarcasm.
But continue calling the groups you oppose idiots, that sounds like the best way to convince them they are wrong. /sarcasm.
I will continue to point my space lazer at you /joking its currently pointed at Gaza.
Please note: I think all the things you said you think are just stupid, I agree seem stupid to me as well. However things like the government is monitoring on everyone, I would have said was true, and would also sound ridiculous however turns out to be kind of true but people simply don't care.
There is a massive difference between something that there is massive piles of evidence in support of (government tracking) and fairytales fabricated whole-cloth from nothing (weather control machines in Alaska controlling a huge network of satellites around the entire globe forcing drastic weather changes in order to force world governments to bend to some green-focused blah blah). THAT type of thing is easy to call out as being idiotic. And before some moron decides to pull out the "you can't prove it isn
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
>It does provide a method for the mentally ill to broadcast their problems to the world.
Which in turn allows mentally ill people to congregate, validate each other, and spread their mental illnesses like fads; like furries, transgenders, socialists, and rust programmers. As the esteemed Ugandan pastor put it, "they eat the poo poo."
If it wasn't the internet, but instead another platform people could publish widely to random strangers, the same situation would occur, of course.
Note however that global cap
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you left out anti-vaxxers and election deniers from the mental illness list.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't include the "Elvis is alive" people, the "Global warming is a hoax" people, the "Fluoride is 5g nanobots" people, or the "Lizard people live among us" people either. I daresay OP assumed that a representative list over an exhaustive compilation was the stronger narrative choice for their comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the obvious, the internet is very addictive (especially youtube), plus you will get fat with no exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because it's impossible to watch YouTube while on a treadmill or out walking.
The internet is addictive, but saying' you will get fat with no exercise is about as relevant to this conversation as the price of tea in England.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before the Internet there was TV and before that radio and before that books.
Nothing before social media platforms was engineered and tweaked to be addictive (to capture and hold attention) over decades by some of the smartest people in the world. It's amazing that these purely digital tools are more addictive than drugs for some people.
* It's worth pointing out that most drugs aren't addictive to a person that is content / not suffering in their normal life.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth pointing out that most drugs aren't addictive to a person that is content / not suffering in their normal life.
Many doctors and scientists would disagree with that assertion. Decades of studies will show exactly how and why certain drugs are medically addictive. The latest drug issue is the use of painkillers that are prescribed to normal people for surgeries that gets them addicted.
Re: (Score:2)
The research I've read happened before addiction to opiate pills was widespread. I don't know about painkiller pills.
But that particular drug aside, my impression (what I keep hearing in pop science articles and podcasts) is that's the old model of addiction and all but disproved. What researchers observe is that whether we're a human or a rat, we tend not to use drugs all the time unless we are bored, lonely, unhappy, hopeless, etc. Though most of us are unhappy to some extent, so that observation isn't as
Re: (Score:2)
The research I've read happened before addiction to opiate pills was widespread. I don't know about painkiller pills.
1) What research are you talking about? Again decades of research have already established how medically addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are. 2) Where have you been that you do not know about the fentanyl crisis? That is like someone who says they are knowledgeable about cars but have never heard about EVs.
But that particular drug aside, my impression (what I keep hearing in pop science articles and podcasts) is that's the old model of addiction and all but disproved. What researchers observe is tha
Re: (Score:2)
This could have been an interesting conversation but it seems like you are reading my comments in the most combative way you could have. Life is too short to be combative or to try formulating the perfect argument and citations to be understood or believed by a stranger. I'm not a credentialed expert. I'm not here to change your mind. If you don't want to have the type of conversation you'd have with a friend, we won't.
Re: (Score:2)
This could have been an interesting conversation but it seems like you are reading my comments in the most combative way you could have.
So was I supposed to spare your feelings by falsely placating how badly you have interpreted research?
Life is too short to be combative or to try formulating the perfect argument and citations to be understood or believed by a stranger.
The problem was never the perfect argument. The problem is that new research on the psychology of addiction does not disprove decades of research on the physiology of addiction. Those are two different aspects which you have confused.
I'm not a credentialed expert. I'm not here to change your mind. If you don't want to have the type of conversation you'd have with a friend, we won't.
The other problem is that you seem very sure of your conclusions even though you admit you have little experience in this field. It was never stated that your opinions were yo
Re: (Score:2)
Football on TV is similar but traditionally includes low nutrition high calorie food and beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Headline is BS. Oxford study is inconclusive, and that's fine. TFS says that social media companies are withholding data that would conclusively determine causality in the negative or the affirmative. How FT translated that to anything other than "study inconclusive due to insufficient data" is beyond me.
The Financial Times is also BS. Oxford is probably in the clear here.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Why don’t you conduct a study and paper to disprove their claims?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely there is harm. There's good too, but there definitely is harm. Self-reinforcing extremism through insular echo-chambers, the continuation of bullying from the real world to the digital world regardless of location, and all sorts of other issues that simply did not exist before the widespread consumer Internet.
As much as people might want to believe that those with political or social views opposing theirs are mentally ill, this is actually not usually true.
Re: (Score:2)
A study: "Walking has been shown to be good for your health."
You: "Nonsense; you can be stabbed by a crazy guy when walking!"
Because cyber bulling / doxing doesn't exist /s (Score:3)
I don't think the medium is the problem, it is the behavior of people. There are some anonymous people who are complete asshats.
i.e. G.I.F.T. [penny-arcade.com]
---
redditard, noun, one who downvotes you because they are unable to respect your opinion or have a civil discussion/disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderator, noun , one who downvotes you because they think you are a troll.
Re: (Score:1)
guns are not the problem
I am sorry, I am failing to see how tool that were designed to murder other human beings aren't a problem that need be getting ride of.
Its not the nuke either is it. It is the countries the use them I assume.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> I am sorry, I am failing to see how tool that were designed to murder other human beings aren't a problem that need be getting ride of.
You're failing to see how that's a total impossible fantasy.
The only question with any tool is who will have them.
You can go American style or you can go Cambodian style.
The great thing is people can move to where they are happiest!
Re: (Score:2)
The great thing is people can move to where they are happiest!
Thanks to the international systems of borders, passports and visas, no actually, they can't.
They are basically peasants tied to the land where they are citizens and have to seek permission to move to the estate of another Lord and master.
Preexisting conditions. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Internet faciltates the actualization of your inner asshole. It lets people be who they are, unfettered by the pressures that hold you back. Before the internet, our personalities were like a star - balanced between societal pull of gravity keeping you constrained against the outwardly exploding jackass. The surface of your personality was the balance achieved. I don't think the internet invents assholes. It just curates them.
Who knows? It might be that allowing people to be the dickwads that truly live inside them means they are achieving better mental health.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
an outlet (Score:4, Insightful)
Just read the anonymous comments on Slashdot. The internet is clearly an outlet for people with mental health issues.
Re: (Score:1)
> The internet is clearly an outlet for people with mental health issues.
So it's cathartic therapy? The trolls are calling us every name in the book to blow off steam? I suppose. Explains certain politician behavior: just venting from lots of stressful court cases.
Re: (Score:2)
The trolls are calling us every name in the book to blow off steam?
Its like the only joy I get in my life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't insult anybody, you roach-filled moldy shitbag!
I wonder what the study criteria was... (Score:1)
They must be equating the internet to electricity. In that in and of themselves they are not harmful. Grab those two bare wires and see how harmless electricity can be.
There is not-evil on the Internet - most reliable news networks, Amazon (for the most part, is fairly neutral), Wikipedia, Google, /., Etsy, Ebay, most corporate websites, etc. Note: This is the customer's mental perception of the site - not if the company is playing fast and loose with the data.
Then there are the mental third-rail sites..
The internet is fine but social media is not. (Score:3)
Who would have thought that treating each other like objects and measuring self-worth by social media engagement would cause any harm. Like it says in the summary the only ones with the data to back up either conclusion are the tech companies themselves and the silence from them is deafening.
Means to an end (Score:2, Flamebait)
Being a truck driver in and of itself is not harmful to one's health.
Tuning in to the CB radio chatter and gradually get converted into a filthy-mouthed racist? That's not good. Focusing more on the job and less on your physical well being, living on fast food and never exercising? Pretty harmful. Overexerting yourself and falling asleep at the wheel? Deadly. Caught the clap from a hooker in a truck stop toilet stall? I'd consider that a bad thing.
But just driving a truck long distances for a living? Not ne
Re: (Score:2)
Meta Designed Platforms To Get Children Addicted, Court Documents Allege [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What do they mean by not harmful. (Score:2)
The new neuro-anatomy of the human race (Score:2)
“We are building the new neuro-anatomy of the human race [yewtu.be]. In the process we are destroying the human attention system, changing our idea of what it means to be human. The effect on our capacity for freedom and self-government is devastating, but not so bad for those who want to govern us. People are increasingly aware of the problem, but don't know what to do. In this talk, I explain how and why.”
The authors of the study (Score:2)
control group (Score:2)
Just wondering, where did they find a control group?
The *Internet* Is Harmless... (Score:2)
Now do a study on social media and cellphone use.
We have no data? We *found* something? (Score:2)
I don't understand. The TFS appears to be saying they had a woefully incomplete data set due to lack of cooperation from social media companies and that the findings are, at best, inconclusive, at worst, not legitimate.
the data necessary to establish a causal connection was "absent" without more co-operation from tech companies. If apps do harm mental health, only the companies that build them have the user data that could prove it, he said.
Yet the headline says "Internet Does Not Appear..." and "Study Finds." It even mentions "Oxford" as if that means something when you have insufficient data.
The only finding here is that social media companies are withholding information from public study. This may, in fact, be benign, but I d
Well That Settles It Then (Score:2)
In a manner similar to the inequality of wealth that we can all observe, social media is contributing to an inequality of attention. A f
Me, and a longtime friend (Score:2)
Maybe it doesn't count as psychological damage because it was so easily reversible, but I had to drop one politics site completely when I noticed I was treating people worse after reading it.
The longtime friend has had his mind taken over by toxic bullshit YouTube videos. I'm sure it's not anything with a DSM code, but I call it damage.
Finally a non-useless sample size! (Score:2)
Shockedâ¦said no one. (Score:1)
Internet use is not the problem (Score:2)
What matters is what you do there.
Going to the Frankfurt railway district ain't a problem either, it's the heroin purchasing people do there that is.
I don't believe it (Score:2)
I really don't believe this conclusion that regular Internet use does not cause mental problems. This is based upon my own person experience. I'm a self-described news junkie (why else would I be regularly refreshing this site?) and I think I am at least mildly addicted to a regular news feed. Furthermore, as a person who used chat rooms before the Internet I can tell you that those kinds of things are very addictive. As a result, I don't use any form of social media at all with the exception of YouTube
Kinda pointless (Score:1)
The actual study: https://journals.sagepub.com/d... [sagepub.com]
The data doesn't break down the usage type. The psychological impact of shopping is going to be different than, say, doom scrolling on social media.
If you're going to lump all internet usage together you might as well say *communication* does not harm mental health.
Sure it does (Score:2)
Lots of people make videos about landscapes in portrait mode.
As sure sign of a diseased mind, almost as bad as multiple exclamation points.
Just Want To Point Out... (Score:2)
What if Heaven's Gate was correct? (Score:1)
Maybe no harm to mental health (Score:1)
The internet maybe no harm to mental health... but social media sure as shit has become the domain of the mentally ill.
Go on NextDoor, Reddit, Facebook, etc... and they're everywhere.