DR MAX: Why should minors under 18 be banned from using social media?

If I told you that I had developed a product that, while it has some uses, is linked to increased anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm, and a variety of other behavioral and emotional issues, you would think twice before using it, wouldn’t you?

If I said I want to give it to your children, maybe you would have something stronger to say about it.

But these are precisely the consequences of social media, and yet for years we have been giving our children unrestricted access to it.

Those of us who work in the field of mental health have become too accustomed to seeing the terrible harmful effects that these applications have on the well-being of people, especially children.

Awareness of mental health issues has improved tremendously in recent years, however, when it comes to social media, we’ve buried our heads in the sand.

Now finally, under mounting pressure and the looming threat of legislation, some social media platforms are taking action (albeit belatedly).

This comes in the wake of several tragic deaths, including that of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life after being exposed to a range of dark and depressing content on social media.

Instagram is launching “teen accounts” tomorrow, which offer parents more control over their children’s behavior on the platform. Currently, children must be at least 13 years old to have an account. Under the new restrictions, privacy settings will be turned on by default for everyone under 18, meaning their content can’t be seen by people who don’t “follow” them.

They will also be asked to approve all new followers. Children between the ages of 13 and 15 will be able to adjust these settings only by adding a parent or guardian to their account.

But while all this is welcome and long overdue, it is not enough.

This is because privacy options are only one part of a much larger problem. Much more dangerous, in my opinion, is the content of these sites and the fact that the platforms are accused of encouraging addictive use. This is a problem for users of all ages, of course.

But it’s a particularly problem for vulnerable young minds that are still developing and trying to deal with a host of other issues, including schoolwork, hormones, changes to their bodies and figuring out their place in the world.

New teen accounts can provide controls over sensitive content to prevent the platform’s “algorithms” from recommending potentially harmful material, such as anything that might encourage self-harm or anorexia, for example.

But who exactly defines what is “sensitive material”? A lot of harmful content online is too nuanced to be easily filtered out.

And while parents can see who their children are communicating with, the new account won’t stop kids from accessing the insidious drip of misinformation and unrepresentative images of “perfect” lives and airbrushed bodies and faces that can foster such deep feelings of anxiety and inadequacy.

And that’s not even mentioning the outrageous diets, healthy eating, unrealistic body images, or even plastic surgery procedures that are glorified on these platforms. The list goes on.

The new restrictions do not prevent children from living their lives online, constantly bombarded by images and content that can affect their concentration and attention.

I think it’s no coincidence that the explosion of ADHD cases has occurred just as social media has become ubiquitous. The result is a generation that can’t tolerate boredom or frustration, even for a few minutes, thanks to a toxic diet of constant stimulation from social media.

I am deeply concerned about the damage and harm we are now causing to the minds of young people who are continually immersed in this online dystopia, not to mention the problems we may be storing up for the future.

The Australian government has announced it will introduce a minimum age for teenagers to use social media.

In my opinion, the same is needed here with the ban on anyone under 16 (ideally 18).

Measures to protect young people from these dangers will not come from the social media giants themselves, given the obvious vested interests.

So this needs to come from lawmakers and the rest of us, as responsible adults.

Pharmacists have voted on whether they should be allowed to “work to the rules” like GPs in a dispute over funding. I fear it won’t be long before other NHS professions start demanding pay rises too. That could spell the end of the NHS. I hope not.

Stacey is right: family comes first

It was recently revealed that TV presenter Stacey Solomon has earned more than £4million since announcing she was quitting her job to prioritise her family.

It’s a good thing for her that she can still earn large sums of money. But even for those of us who can’t increase our income without working overtime, I think it’s worth thinking about how to prioritize family time over work.

Of course, balancing work and personal life is never easy, but research shows that not spending time with loved ones is the number one thing people regret most at the end of their lives.

Even though studies repeatedly show that having more money does not make us happier, it is still very tempting to prioritize it. Once we have secured the basics in life, the real source of satisfaction for the vast majority of people is their relationships with other people.

Maybe it’s time to consider whether the choices we make actually make us happy or whether they just make us feel like we should be happy. There is an important difference.

Right-wingers are often stereotyped as uncaring people, but this may not be fair, according to a new study. Dutch researchers found that those with more conservative views have a larger amygdala.

While this part of the brain is involved in threat perception (which possibly explains why conservatives tend to focus on safety), it also plays a role in emotion and empathy. I’ve found that many people with right-wing views are nice people, but they believe that we should all take responsibility for our actions.

In my view, this is an optimistic attitude, based on the belief that people, if left to their own devices, are fundamentally capable and do not need support to get ahead.