As this is n = 1, take this with a grain of salt, but as a high school teacher I can tell you that's definitely not what teenagers are doing with their phones the majority of the time. Your view is very optimistic; for the most part, kids are sending each other snaps and checking IG for high school drama, fashion, make up, gossip, memes, and those fitness inspo pics. That last observation comes from the fact that apart from teaching math, I occasionally teach a fitness class and get kids showing me these ridiculously fit (usually not natural) people pics on IG. They also really like YouTube.

That may be what most of your students are doing, but does not preclude the fact that there are ways to use social media (including Instagram) effectively, and that there are certainly people who are doing this.

Yes, agreed. But what I'm saying is that, I don't believe the average teenager uses social media in a "healthy" nor "educational" type of way.

At the risk of generalizing from anecdotal evidence - Instagram seems to be the worst by far for this kind of thing.

All images, little content and no good way to really communicate. The heavy users I’ve known just endlessly scroll through images of attractive ‘influencers’, dogs, makeup ads, or just photos posted by friends (mostly using it to show off as mentioned in the article).

While Facebook will have discussion and links to interesting articles depending on your network, Instagram doesn’t seem to have much of that.

I have a bias though because out of all the social apps I find it to be incredibly banal and boring.

Do you actually use Instagram yourself? From my anecdotal evidence - IG is the greatest source of new friends (do you know how hard to get a friend when you are an adult? It's easy with IG). Most communication happens in private messages, so you don't see it.

How is it a source of new friends?

It's acceptable and encouraged to follow unknown people on IG. I follow people with hobbies I like, some of them become friends due to interaction. Unfortunately this works only for hobbies that can be fit in a photo, I'd like to have a more generalized platform (anyone remembers Livejournal? :)

If you read comments here, you will find a few people who lost their significant others, because they got too many friends from Instagram and irreversibly changed!

Agreed. Why not indeed.

And people are doing different activities on their phone including games and reading news or whatever they want.

It's a no-brainer why more people are depressed. From increasing environmental concerns including global warming, to violence and conflict, and a myriad of domestic issues that we can't not be aware of any more. I remember a time when I lived in a small town and was very incubated from the world's problems. That incubation no longer exists.

OCD replying to myself, but I used the word "incubated" when I meant something more along the lines of shielded, unaware, protected, unaffected.

I'd say that books and museums are problematic in very similar ways. Neither of those institutions are focused on reality. Both are contrary to human dialog and an unmediated existence.

When I'm sitting on the train I'm studying the people and things that I see around me, trying to look for the poetry in everyday life. I'm a songwriter but the approach works just as well with a travel set of watercolors and a sketchbook for the more visually inclined.

I have never seen good art being made by people who spend their time confusing Instagram for reality. If you have I would question wether you have the ability to recognize good from bad art. You must learn how to read before you can appreciate a good novel and the same applies to understanding other forms of art.

Good art will have a profound effect. It will literally give your life meaning and purpose. It will change the way you think about your society and your role in it.

Bad art is consumed like a fast-food hamburger. It might be superficially entertaining in the moment but will leave you feeling worse off after a few hours.

Good art doesn't need to appeal to the art critic or the marketplace but it must leave a deep satisfaction in the hearts and minds of those that take the time to appreciate it.

The issue is that social media is bad for mental health. That means that excessive social media time can be a problem and is more objectionable that reading a book and likely also worse than watching TV or playing video games. I think if everyone was reading or doing something similarly benign on their phones it would be much less of an issue.

> That means that excessive social media time can be a problem and is more objectionable that reading a book and likely also worse than watching TV or playing video games.

That’s a rather serious claim to make without a source to back it up. What makes you think that reading is more “benign” than social media?

Maybe I misunderstood the point of your comment but I'm not trying to argue that reading is good for you (which I personally believe), just that it isn't bad for you and I'm not aware of any controversy around that latter point as I have never heard anyone argue that they are bad for you and I couldn't find any studies saying that it is bad for you. If you think that point is controversial I'm willing to entertain the argument but the claim doesn't seem that serious to me.

But their point still stands-it’s entirely possible to use Instagram in a “positive” way.

I think that's an idealized view. My opinion is that it does more harm than good. On a large scale, at least. Individually, sure, there are some people who can handle it, but it's mostly a net-negative for the world.

I'd like to see the data, personally. I'm sure there have been plenty of studies of how social media affects society, but do we have much of a consensus?