Recent legal cases brought against social media companies concerning the impact of their products on mental health have provoked some significant questions and debates. Notably, these debates involve accusations of the knowing and deliberate design of an addictive device. However, a further issue of significant psychological importance is the extent to which digital usage (whether the consequence of addiction or not) is responsible for a person’s poor mental health. This question was brought to the fore by the tenor of the argument presented by Facebook’s legal team, suggesting that pre-existing mental health conditions are a more important factor than social media use.

The contention: Even if a person is in clear difficulty with their mental health and they have used social media a great deal, if their mental health condition was poor before the social media usage, then this somehow absolves the social media company from any responsibility. It is an argument long used by insurance companies attempting not to pay out to claimants; in this sense, it is nothing new. However, in the context of digital use, there seem to be clear flaws in this defence, which can be highlighted by some thoughts about analogies.

Arguments Over Baseline Levels

First, there can always be questions asked about the prior mental functioning of an individual displaying problematic behaviour. Yet, even if they did present mental health problems before engaging in social media use, it........

© Psychology Today