I think it's because it's not possible to know if that would have happened without the internet and therefore causality hasn't been established. Like if someon

I think it's because it's not possible to know if that would have happened without the internet and therefore causality hasn't been established. Like if someone is self-harming, is the problem the tool or the fact that they're self-harming? Such a person might have ended up isolating themselves to watch TV, or read, or other things. I've done all of the above with books and television. In which case the issue may be information availability offering people a new option: It's a lot easier to ignore the world and read 500 books in a row if I can download them all without leaving my house and there's no check to go 'is this a good idea?' If the issue is information availability, blocking the internet/social media will do nothing. Think streaming Netflix for hours versus flipping through TV on the 90s: You'd stop flipping if nothing interested you, but on Netflix there's ALWAYS something.