Debate: Social media content moderation may do more harm than good for youth mental health.

Abstract

Most social media platforms censor and moderate content related to mental illness to protect users from harm, though this may be at the expense of potential positive outcomes for youth mental health. Current evidence does not offer strong support for the relationship between censoring mental health content and preventing harm. In fact, existing moderation strategies can perpetuate negative consequences for mental health by creating isolated and polarized communities where at-risk youth remain exposed to harmful content, such as pro-eating disorder communities that use lexical variants to evade censorship. Social media censorship of content related to mental illness can also silence positive discourse about mental health, create barriers to accessing online support and resources, and hinder research efforts on youth well-being. Social media content about mental health can have important positive impacts on youth mental health by facilitating help-seeking, depicting positive coping strategies, and promoting a sense of belonging for struggling youth, but these benefits are minimized under existing moderation and censorship practices. This article presents a call to action for evidence-based social media policies and for practitioners to consider the clinical implications of social media engagement when connecting with young patients.