I still don't see any actual casual link. Nor do I see any evidence given that the situation would improve if social media was banned or restricted, the few he

I still don't see any actual casual link. Nor do I see any evidence given that the situation would improve if social media was banned or restricted, the few he does give don't talk about mental illness, but rather general wellness and add in more variables like exercise. There were other problems like "fake" data or non-significant changes labeled as significant. I haven't even seen enough evidence to show correlation, for example a few of the attempted suicide graphs would have peaks if they went back further, or show no reaction to social media like youtube and myspace, wouldn't you expect the same group of girls who use social media 5+ hours a day to have used myspace at it's peak, and for them to have some negative reaction if social media was inherently harmful? Maybe you could draw a correlation with smartphones or smartphone+social media? But the unspecificity of the claim is a red flag. There is also the general principle that social science simply isn't advanced enough to make these kinds of predictions yet, so the discussion really is moot. In my opinion this is just the typical modern overreaction to regression to the mean. He goes on to say "what is the harm" in restricting children's access to communication. Other than the mass economic, educational and social harm none. Just because you as an old man view the younger generations social interactions as trite, nonsensical and worthless doesn't mean it is. I guess if you view education as the top down passage of knowledge then the idea that students use their phone in class must be horrifying. "Children educating eachother over the internet? Do you want society to collapse? Society needs doctors, layers and computer scientists, not dancers and memes" To me this seems like you are forcing your personal values onto students and their parents have already rejected them.