Here's what proposed social media warning labels for children may look like

Experts say positive method of 'gain-framed' messaging would be best for social platform warning labels

US surgeon general Vivek Murthy's call for warning labels on social media platforms sparked a debate about how a hypothetical warning label should look. Illustration: Nick Donaldson

While it’s still unclear if the US surgeon general Vivek Murthy's call for social media platforms to carry warning labels will come to fruition, some experts say there’s a right and wrong way to approach such a programme.

Back in June, the surgeon general, citing growing concern over research findings on the effects of social media on teenagers and pre-teenagers, said the various platforms were contributing to increasing mental health issues among young people.

He called for warning labels as a first step to be taken to address the problem.

Prof Bernard Appiah, an assistant professor of public health at Syracuse University in New York, said such a move would mark "a step in the right direction".

"What's crucial is the framing of the message," he said, adding a significant amount of thought should be put into the process.

"My ideal warning would be one that will be specific enough regarding how much time will be considered 'too much' for being on social media, and will depend on whether the information is for children or adults."

It is important for regulators, governments and the private sector to use what many communication professionals and health experts call gain-framed messaging instead of loss-framed messaging, Prof Appiah said.

"Gain-framed messaging emphasises the positives of engaging in good behavior whereas loss-framed messaging emphasises the negative outcomes of bad behavior.

"For example, the statement, 'spending more than three hours a day on social media is bad for your mental health,' is loss-framed messaging.

"To turn it into gain-framed messaging, a label should say 'spending less than three hours a day on social media is good for your mental health,'" he said, noting that research shows that the gain-framed approach is generally more effective.

Prof Appiah said he bases the 'three-hour' portion of the warning label on an intensive study published by the Jama Psychiatry journal, which looked at the effect social media usage had on adolescents.

Solely relying on the labels, he added, would also be problematic.

"For warning labels to be more effective, they should be complimented with counselling and other communication interventions such as advertisements to help change behavior," he explained.

The US surgeon general's call for warning labels on social media generated praise and criticism from officials and technology experts.

"I'm glad to see support growing for sensible rules to mitigate the damaging effects of social media on kids’ mental health," said former US president Barack Obama back in June.

Taylor Barkley, director of public policy with the Abundance Institute, a non-profit dedicated to emerging technologies, was critical of the idea.

"The surgeon general is correct that American teens are facing a mental health crisis, but requiring a warning label on social media won't solve these issues," he said. "It will instead create new avenues for government censorship."

"More effective and civil liberty preserving solutions are as the surgeon general describes elsewhere: all of the community, starting with parents and caregivers, equipping teens for success via education, moderate use, and treating teens facing mental health issues," he added.

Over the last several years, amid growing concern about smartphone and social media distractions, smartphone makers and social media platforms have introduced various monitoring and time management tools.

But critics argue that younger users are more vulnerable to becoming addicted.

In recent months on bestseller lists in the US, American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation, which largely blames smartphones and social media for causing an increase in mental illness among young people, has enjoyed sustained success.

Mr Haidt has also spoken in favour of the US surgeon general's warning label suggestion.

In the end, however, it remains just that, a suggestion. Any sort of label would probably require bipartisan congressional support to become legislation.

It would also likely face resistance from social media and technology companies with deep pockets.