Analyzing 3 Articles on social media
- Asztrid Szasz
- 3 days ago
- 6 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
First article - The Social Dilemma (Research Gate)
Article: Social Effect of Social Media Revealed in The Social Dilemma Documentary Movie: Post-Truth Perspective
The article argues that The Social Dilemma shows how social media platforms contribute to a post-truth society, where emotions and personal beliefs matter more than facts. It explains that misinformation spreads quickly because algorithms are designed to promote content that increases engagement, not accuracy. The key idea is that these platforms on purpose push emotionally charged content, which can mislead users and influence how people think and act. The documentary is presented not just as entertainment, but as evidence of real social media practices.
The article follows a traditional academic structure, with sections such as an Abstract, Introduction, Analysis, and Conclusion. This shows that it is formal research rather than personal opinion.
Instead of using surveys or experiments, the author uses qualitative film analysis. He closely examines The Social Dilemma, focusing on specific scenes, dialogue, and interviews. He looks at what is being said/who is saying it (such as former tech employees) and what claims they make about social media.
For example, the article analyses scenes where former workers from companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter explain how algorithms are designed to boost engagement. It also looks at interviews discussing how platforms profit by selling users’ attention to advertisers. These ideas are linked to post-truth theory, showing that emotional content is often prioritised over factual accuracy. These scenes are treated as evidence of real industry practices, not just storytelling.
Throughout the article, expert quotes from the documentary are connected to academic definitions of misinformation and disinformation. The analysis explains how meaning is created through expert voices, what is said in the film, and the documentary’s overall narrative focus.
The article explains that misinformation is false info shared without the intent to harm, while disinformation is false info spread with the intent to mislead. It links these ideas to scenes in The Social Dilemma, showing how politics can be manipulated, how algorithms push certain content, and how this leads to conspiracy theories and people becoming more divided. This helps show the connection between the theory, the film, and real-world effects.
Post-truth theory shows how people’s emotions and personal beliefs often matter more than facts when forming opinions, especially on social media. The documentary shows this through interviews and explanations of how recommendation systems push extreme or sensational content quickly. Real-life examples such as COVID-19 misinformation, political division, and online conspiracy groups show that this happens outside the film too. The analysis is backed up by media theory, research on misinformation, and studies of digital culture, linking the film to wider real-world issues.
Second article - Mental health article from The Social Dilemma (PMC PubMed Central)
The social dilemma: unravelling the disturbing impact on youth mental health
The article explains that there is a strong link between social media use and poor mental health in young people. It argues that these effects are not just random, but are made worse by the way social media platforms are designed. Because of this, the issue should be treated as a public health concern rather than just a personal problem. The main point is that there is enough evidence showing risks to young people’s mental health to justify action, even if it is hard to prove exact cause-and-effect links.
The article uses a journalistic interview style, with questions in bold and answers from two experts, which makes it easy to follow and more engaging. The experts are researchers from Anses, which adds credibility and shows that the claims are based on research rather than opinion. The tone is careful and balanced, explaining that social media is not the only cause of these problems and recognising that the issue is complex. It also acknowledges that social media can have positive social effects. This helps avoid moral panic and makes the argument feel more responsible and trustworthy.
The article is clearly structured and moves through its points step by step. It starts by explaining why adolescence is a vulnerable time, then looks at how social media platforms work and how they interact with teenage psychology. It also discusses which groups are most affected, the difficulty of proving direct cause and effect, and possible regulation or solutions. This structure helps readers gradually build a clear understanding of the issue.
Dark patterns and attention
The text explains how features like likes, notifications, autoplay, and infinite scrolling are designed to grab users’ attention and keep them scrolling so platforms can make money.
Algorithm feedback loops
It shows how searching for sensitive topics can lead to being shown more of the same content over and over, creating a negative cycle. This links to ideas in The Social Dilemma, but in a more realistic and less dramatic way.
Scientific support
The argument is backed up with research on teenage brain development, reward systems, and how young people are affected by peer feedback. It also refers to a five-year expert review of over 1,000 academic studies, which adds credibility.
Limits of the evidence
The text is honest about the fact that while there are strong links, it’s hard to prove direct cause and effect. This honesty makes the article feel more reliable and trustworthy.
Third article - Also on mental health (The Conversation)
Article: Social media is boosting mental health disorders and suicidal thoughts among teens, particularly in girls - Published by The Conversation (Jan 28, 2026)
Social media doesn’t directly cause mental health disorders, but the way platforms are designed can make existing problems worse for teenagers, especially girls and other vulnerable groups. Adolescence is a sensitive time for brain and emotional development, and social media takes advantage of this through attention-grabbing features and personalised algorithms. These can increase anxiety, low mood, poor self-image, bullying, sleep problems, and harmful thinking patterns. The issue is not how long people spend on social media, but how the platforms are designed and used. The article argues that social media companies should be held accountable and regulated, rather than banning social media altogether.
The article uses a journalistic interview format, with bold questions and answers from two experts, which makes it easy to follow and accessible. The experts from Anses add credibility and show that the points made are based on research. The language is careful and balanced, explaining that social media is not the only cause of these issues and recognising that it can also have positive effects. This avoids moral panic and makes the argument feel responsible and trustworthy.
The article is clearly structured, moving from adolescence as a vulnerable stage to how social media platforms work, their impact on young people, the difficulty of proving these effects, and possible regulation or solutions. This step-by-step approach helps readers build understanding gradually.
The article explains how “dark patterns” like likes, notifications, autoplay, and infinite scrolling are designed to grab attention and make money. It also shows how searching for sensitive topics can lead to being shown similar content repeatedly, creating a negative cycle. This links to ideas in The Social Dilemma, but in a less dramatic way.
The discussion is supported by research on teenage brain development, reward systems, and sensitivity to peer feedback, including a five-year expert review of over 1,000 academic studies. The article also admits that while strong links exist, it is difficult to prove direct cause and effect, which makes the argument more credible and trustworthy.
These 3 articles match best as they reach a similar conclusion, although they use different methods, they all identify the same root problem that: "Social media harm is driven primarily by platform design and algorithmic systems, not just individual user behaviour."
I desided to write my article about this specific topic/problem. I was thinking what questions would people when hearing about this specific topic, and came up with some questions I would ask myself or would want to ask someone in the domani. In my article I will try to go based on the answers I find to these questions.
Which elements of platform design cause harm, infinite scroll, autoplay, likes, streaks, notifications, or something else? And how do they do that?
- Social media is designed to keep people scrolling for as long as possible, and features like likes and infinite scroll can easily lead to unhealthy use.
How do algorithms amplify harm?
- Algorithms push content that gets strong reactions, which often means dramatic, extreme, or harmful posts get shown more than calm or balanced ones.
Are users freely choosing harmful behaviours, or are platforms nudging, manipulating, or conditioning those choices through design?
- People don’t just behave badly on social media for no reason, platforms encourage certain habits and choices through how they’re built.
Who benefits from these algorithmic systems?
- Social media companies make money from attention, so keeping users hooked often matters more than protecting mental health.
What evidence supports this claim?
- Research and leaked information suggest that social media companies know their platforms can cause harm but continue to prioritise engagement.
Comments