Meta collected some eyewitness testimony accidentally. In that famous internal study brought out by whistleblower Frances Haugen, the researchers found that Instagram is particularly bad for girls. They wrote: "Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression. ... This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups." Quantitative researchers such as Odgers are free to place less weight on qualitative studies, but they are a kind of evidence in social science research. They are relevant when we try to sort out multiple theories about causation, especially when the platforms will not share data with scientists so the experts with the deepest insights into what social media is doing to teens are the teens themselves. They see it happening. Do they count as "no evidence" since their claims are not peer-reviewed?
https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/733/246/541/798/original/3eccbf76cde9c65e.jpeg