Online Commentary A technology journalist published the following opinion piece about social media's influence on young people. A longitudinal study conduct...

(a) According to the study cited, heavy social media users (more than four hours daily) were 63% more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression than peers who used social media for less than one hour. [1 mark]

(b) How the business model of social media companies may contribute to harm among young users: [5 marks: 2 for linking advertising revenue to engagement maximisation; 2 for explaining the mechanism of amplifying provocative content; 1 for connecting this to evidence of harm]

Social media companies generate revenue through advertising. Advertisers pay based on user engagement - the more time users spend on the platform and the more they interact with content, the more advertising can be shown and the more revenue is generated.

This creates a structural incentive to maximise engagement, which internal company documents have shown means amplifying emotionally provocative content. Content that triggers strong emotional reactions (outrage, anxiety, envy, excitement) keeps users scrolling, clicking, and returning. The algorithm does not distinguish between content that is good for users and content that is harmful - it promotes whatever generates the most interaction.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to this mechanism. The study found that 78% of participants compared their appearance and lifestyle to influencer content. This social comparison is amplified by the platform's design: curated, idealised images are promoted because they generate engagement (likes, comments, shares), while ordinary content is deprioritised. The result is that teenagers are exposed to a constant stream of unrealistic standards.

The Sheffield study's finding - that heavy users are 63% more likely to report anxiety and depression - connects this business model to measurable harm. The companies profit from the same engagement patterns that damage young people's mental health, creating a conflict between corporate revenue and user wellbeing.

(c) Whether government regulation or parental responsibility is the better approach: [8 marks: 7-8 for structured argument addressing both sides with evidence; 4-6 for competent discussion; 1-3 for basic points]

Arguments for government regulation:

• Scale of the problem: The Sheffield study tracked 3,200 teenagers and found a 63% higher rate of anxiety and depression among heavy users. A problem affecting millions of young people across entire populations cannot be solved one household at a time. Government regulation can set baseline protections that apply universally.
• Individual parents cannot control platform design: Parents have no influence over algorithmic amplification, advertising targeting, or content recommendation systems. Age verification requirements, mandatory screen-time warnings, or restrictions on data collection from minors address the structural problem at its source.
• Precedent: Governments already regulate other industries that affect children - tobacco advertising, alcohol sales, broadcasting content standards. Social media platforms are analogous: they deliver content to children that can cause measurable harm, so regulatory intervention follows established principles.

Arguments for parental responsibility:

• Individual knowledge: Parents understand their own children's maturity, emotional resilience, and specific vulnerabilities better than any blanket government regulation can. A 14-year-old who uses social media to connect with a supportive creative community has different needs from a 14-year-old who is vulnerable to body-image comparison.
• Enforcement difficulties: Government restrictions (such as age verification) may be easily circumvented through VPNs, false age declarations, or using a parent's account. Regulation that cannot be enforced may create a false sense of security.
• Free expression concerns: State monitoring of digital activity raises civil liberties issues. In some countries, government control of online platforms could be abused for political censorship or surveillance.

Balanced conclusion: The most effective approach treats regulation and parenting as complementary rather than alternatives. Governments can mandate transparency about algorithmic design, enforce age verification, require companies to disable engagement-maximising features for young users, and fund digital literacy education. Parents, meanwhile, provide individualised guidance, set household rules, and model healthy technology use. Neither level of action alone is sufficient - structural problems require structural solutions, while individual wellbeing requires individual attention.