What are the pros and cons of social medias impact on mental health during the coronavirus pandemic?

Social media has facilitated communication during the pandemic

Question: What are the pros and cons of social medias impact on mental health during the coronavirus pandemic?
Position1 of 2›: Pros of social media on mental health during pandemic
Argument1 of 2›: Social media has facilitated communication during the pandemic

The ongoing global pandemic has isolated many from friends and loved ones, creating a rise in individuals experiencing feelings of loneliness and other symptoms of poor mental health. However, it can be argued that social media has facilitated communication during a time of distress. Now more than ever, there is a range of avenues available to people so they can stay connected virtually. Consequently, this enables communities to build a stronger support network during a time of unease and anxiety.

The argument

In this pandemic, social media has become a lifeline for many, tackling issues of loneliness and isolation, demonstrating why human beings rely on opportunities to connect and socialise with others. The circumstances are what make the case unusual: the measures that reduced transmission worked precisely by removing the ordinary settings in which people see one another — workplaces, classrooms, and households other than their own — so the need for contact remained exactly as it was while every customary means of meeting it was withdrawn at once. Why that bears on mental health rather than merely on convenience is set out in the passage the argument rests on. Robinson argues that "Human beings are social creatures. We need the companionship of others to thrive in life, and the strength of our connections has a huge impact on our mental health and happiness. Being socially connected to others can ease stress, anxiety, and depression, boost self-worth, provide comfort and joy, prevent loneliness, and even add years to your life. On the flip side, lacking strong social connections can pose a serious risk to your mental and emotional health." Two features of that account apply to the pandemic directly. The first is that connection is described as protective rather than merely pleasant — it eases stress, anxiety and depression, which are the conditions that prolonged isolation is most likely to produce. The second is the symmetry of the claim: if strong connections confer those benefits, then their absence carries a corresponding risk, so a period in which contact is prevented is not neutral for mental health but actively harmful. Social media is the channel that stayed open when the others closed. It could not reproduce everything about being in a room with someone, but it kept the connections themselves intact through the period when physical proximity was unavailable, which is where its benefit to mental health during the pandemic lies.

Premises

[P1]Human beings are social creatures whose mental health depends on staying connected to others. [P2] During the pandemic, social media has provided a vital means of maintaining those connections despite physical isolation. [C] Therefore, social media has benefited mental health during the pandemic by facilitating communication and easing loneliness.

Counter-arguments

Particularly during a global pandemic, social media usage can have the counter-argument of becoming overwhelming and interpreted as a negative activity for one's mental health if used extensively.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The claim quoted is about companionship and strong social ties in general. The argument needs it to be about mediated contact in particular, and that is the step never taken. [Rejecting P2] Availability is not benefit. The same platforms carried the pandemic's news, argument and social comparison, and heavier use during the period has been associated with worse rather than better mood — so the mechanism has to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

The argument

Premises

Counter-arguments

Rejecting the premises

Further reading