This is just conveniently redefining what most people mean when they talk about objective factors.
I tend to agree that this ability to broadcast doom is an explanatory factor and it makes life worse, but to claim this is an objective explanatory factor is problematic I think, at least without drawing a distinction between this factor and those traditionally considered "objective".
But setting aside arguments about semantics, I think the deep seated stigmas around mental health that have only recently started to fade are a huge factor in the language we use to describe these issues, and I would argue seem to influence many people's perception of the importance of "subjective" factors (i.e. they deprioritize these factors or think they are not as "real" as objective factors).
People tend to think of issues that impact mental health as somehow less objective, because mental health is itself subjective. While it's objectively true that if I do not have enough money to buy food and don't find some other way to acquire it, I will die, it is not objectively true that two people experiencing the same social media environment will be impacted by it the same way, and yet this is an experience that can also lead to death.
But even if we accept that subjective factors are the primary issue, we can still trace those back to objective causes, it's just that we cannot use the same mental models of understanding "objective quality of life". We could find that social media is objectively the cause of degraded mental health (and studies are confirming this), but the impact itself is still subjective, unlike traditional economic indicators.
In other words, subjective experience could be just as critical to understand and explore as objective factors, and that subjectivity does not in any way reduce the importance or validity of such exploration.
I disagree. People have complained about the increase in television channels and shows leading to a breakdown in the cohesiveness of society. Broadcast technologies (along with the related rabbit-hole and bubble effects) are definitely an aspect of "objective factors" that people talk about.
> People tend to think of issues that impact mental health as somehow less objective, because mental health is itself subjective.
Personal mental health is subjective in much the same way that personal ability to find a place to sleep (from couch surfing to buying a mansion) is subjective (and becoming harder due to demographics and new construction deficits).
Social mental health (sociology) is an objectively measurable criterion. As indicated by the link in my edit to the post you are responding to.
(Pardon the tense disagreement in the third sentence.)
There are plenty of distopian SF societies that are wonderful from an economic basis, but horrific from another basis (Brave New World is the most famous, but by far not the only example).
I think the biggest issue here is the normal headline/article disagreement.
Edit to add:
As for "objective data":
Social: The collapse of friendships and group activities. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/the-state-of-a...
Environmental: Things have improved in some respects compared to the smog and burning rivers of the 60s. But in other respects we now have historic droughts, historic wildfires, increasing frequency of cyclones, sea-level increases, decreases in green spaces, climate change, and still a variety of pollution events (which get more airplay than in previous years).
Sexual: Incel communities. Breakups by text and ghosting. Finding partners online balanced out by not having the support of shared communities with sexual partners.