While trying to go a bit deeper into the sources, they honestly feel extremely weak... An example of how negative impact on the brain is backed: https://link.

While trying to go a bit deeper into the sources, they honestly feel extremely weak... An example of how negative impact on the brain is backed: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2 From the abstract: > we systematically identified articles meeting the following inclusion criteria: published in English between January 1999–July 2019; human or animal subjects; primary and secondary sources including original research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews. Primary search terms focused on “smartphone,” “mental health,” “substance use,” “neurodevelopment,” and “neurodegeneration”; secondary search terms focused on “social media,” “anxiety,” “cannabis,” and “dementia”. They basically went fishing for studies that focus on the negative impacts, came back with enough content and packaged it as a meta-study. This sure could show some negative traits potentially associated with screen time. But that's very far from justifying TFA's title, worded as a causation, and not some random association when singling out pathological subjects.