zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
As with all studies in the social sciences, one of two principles apply.

First, if the conclusions are counterintuitive or unexpected, then when you look closer, you will find that the methodology is garbage and that it does not support the conclusions given.

Second, if the conclusions reflect things that you believe are true, when you look closer, you will find that the methodology is garbage and that it does not support the conclusions given.

>>andrew+HQ
That's a low-effort, shallow dismissal that doesn't even address anything specific to the article.

If you have specific criticism regarding the methodology of this study - which doesn't, prima facie, appear unsound - please let the rest of us participate.

>>Tainno+OZ
I will take a stab. Mind you, I have not even clicked on the article, much less read it or know what the methodology is. Here goes ----

"The have used a correlational model, not a causal model. There are several confounding variables the paper doesn't consider, hence it is not proven from the evidence that Facebook has a negative impact "

>>random+a11
FWIW, the article claims the exact opposite

> While many studies have found a correlation between the use of social media and various symptoms related to mental health, so far, it has been challenging to ascertain whether social media was actually the cause of poor mental health. By applying a novel research method, researchers have now succeeded in establishing such a causality

But doesn't elaborate on the new method. We'll have to wait for the study to be published I guess.