Crux of the story: The fact that multiple studies looking at the same data disagree means that if there is evidence in the data, it's not that large.

You can have strong opinion that social media harms children, but agree that there is not enough data and scientific evidence that shows it.

Was this research funded by Meta or Alphabet?

Everyone in public staring at their phone constantly is not harmful.

The harms that social media has allegedly created predates social media. This entire 'issue' is political in nature and not scientific. Though social scientists are losing their mind, they are also blind to the fix because social sciences are blind to conservatives. social sciences is >90% liberals.

Haidt outright admits that his own research p-value discredits his own claims, but he challenges for a better answer. Yet does not accept the better answers? Curious that.

This is actually an anti-free speech group attempting to censor political opponents... and this is the same people who stand accused. I feel like most people think these are 2 different groups.

This insidious anti-freedom political move has given Trump a huge mandate.