UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME [UBI]: SOLUTION OR CATASTROPHE IN AN ADDICTIVE SOCIETY?
David Barnhizer
Arguments are being made that a Universal Basic Income is the right of all citizens of nations such as found in Western Europe and North America to receive a governmental payment sufficient to allow them to exist on a decent level. This is regardless of whether they are able to work in the traditional sense, or choose to opt out of the workforce partially or entirely. Achieving this entitlement “right” would prove extremely difficult fiscally and politically even if everyone agreed on its legitimacy.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett has stated that capitalism inevitably cuts jobs in its quest for greater efficiency, productivity and profit. Notably, this statement is empirically incorrect with respect to past industrial revolutions and capitalist reallocations of production and capital investment. With every past industrial revolution, jobs destroyed by new innovations were replaced by other jobs in new fields.
Buffett is correct in relation to this AI/robotics driven Fourth Industrial Revolution and the consequences it poses for the destruction of human work opportunities. An extensive analysis of the implications of AI/Robotics for employment and our social order is presented in David Barnhizer & Daniel Barnhizer, The Artificial Intelligence Contagion: Can Democracy Withstand the Imminent Transformation of Work, Wealth and the Social Order? (Clarity 2019).
What Do We Do With “Human Roadkill”?
While lamenting this dynamic of capitalism’s destruction of jobs, Buffett indicated that government needed to develop strategies such as providing people with a Universal Basic Income guarantee (UBI) to help the large number of what he referred to as “human roadkill” represented by workers pushed out of jobs that will not be recreated. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-06/trump-proposes-95-percent-cut-to-drug-office-chief-warns-staff. “Buffett Laments 'Roadkill' Who Lose Jobs, Says U.S. Must Help”, Katherine Chiglinsky, Noah Buhayar, and Jordyn Holman, 5/6/17.
As work opportunities shrink, government-supplied income and service dependencies will increase. http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/jobs-automation-artificial-intelligence-robotics/. See, e.g. “The Bright Side of Job-Killing Automation”, Barb Darrow, 4/5/17. As this transformation occurs, panicked people will demand expanded support even while opportunities for self-enhancing work, or any work, diminish and disappear along with what we call the “work ethic”. As this happens, and it already is occurring in the context of our health care and Medicaid crises along with other areas of historical employment, our society will be fundamentally altered. This shift will intensify a systemic “shockwave” that I think already rippled through the 2024 elections.
One result of the transformation will be the rapid expansion of an unproductive segment of society who, even if many want to work will not be able to find employment capable of sustaining themselves and their families, or obtain no work at all. Tens of millions of others will not want to work, not be willing to work, or even know how to engage in work as skills and our “work ethic” disappear. They will be denied the special opportunity of work and the creative opportunities, aims and sense of discipline and participation it can provide. Paul Vigna explains what we face.
“If more and more workers are going to be displaced by robots, then they will need money to live on, will they not? And if that strikes you as a form of socialism, I would suggest we get used to it.” “What to Do After the Robots Take Our Jobs: Get ready for driverless trucks, universal basic income, and less independent central banks”, 5/4/16, http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/2016/05/04/bill-gross-what-to-do-after-the-robots-take-our-jobs/.
As to the inevitability of the emerging financial crisis, Janus Capital’s Bill Gross observes:
“The question isn’t whether or not this is going to happen. “It is,” he says. The question is how to pay for it, and the answer is two words: “helicopter money.” This is the concept of central banks essentially printing money, and while it sounds like an unsound idea, it is essentially what’s been happening since the Panic of 2008 anyhow. This money isn’t exactly free, of course. The price gets paid via inflation…. This is essentially a Ponzi scheme, [Gross] points out, but at this point an unavoidable one. It’s also an inherently unstable structure.” Vigna, id.
The possibility of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for a nation’s entire population is not hypothetical but it will not be easily achieved financially or be politically acceptable. But the issue is being raised with frequency and predictions of inevitable job loss are being used to call on governments to provide a Universal Basic Income. Elon Musk describes a future in which robots do nearly all of the work and humans live on governmental stipends. “There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," says Musk ... "I am not sure what else one would do.” Catherine Clifford, “Elon Musk: Robots will take your jobs, government will have to pay your wage”, 11/4/2016. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon-musk-robots-will-take-your-jobs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html.
Musk does not see an alternative because he is helping to create the economic system that makes something approximating a Universal Basic Income essential. He and others who are the spearheads of the AI/robotic transformation of our economic structure, form, and a kind of “dehumanization” are destroying human jobs and in doing so making UBI seem inevitable. The report adds:
“Musk sees increased automation as an overall benefit to society, even an opportunity. "People will have time to do other things, more complex things, more interesting things". The more “interesting” things include whatever people choose to do with the great expansion of leisure time that would be created. The report recognizes, however, that: “A long horizon of leisure time may sound good, but it can also be an intimidating prospect. For many, having a job and someplace to be each day is grounding and gives purpose to life.” Catherine Clifford, “Elon Musk: Robots will take your jobs, government will have to pay your wage”, id. 11/4/2016. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon-musk-robots-will-take-your-jobs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html.
The 2016 Swiss and Finnish Attempts at UBI
It is extremely difficult, in Western nations at least, to have broad acceptance of the idea of workers supporting people who don’t want to work, yet there is already more of that occurring through a mixture of largely invisible entitlement and subsidy programs than we might think.
“Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income”, Ivana Kottasova, 1/3/17. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/02/news/economy/finland-universal-basic-income/.
Participants will receive €560 ($587) a month -- money that is guaranteed regardless of income, wealth or employment status. The idea is that a universal income offers workers greater security, especially as technological advances reduce the need for human labor. It will also allow unemployed people to pick up odd jobs without losing their benefits. The initial program will run for a period of two years. Participants were randomly selected, but had to be receiving unemployment benefits or an income subsidy. The money they are paid through the program will not be taxed. If the program is successful, it could be expanded to include all adult Finns. The Finnish government thinks the initiative could save money in the long run. The country's welfare system is complex and expensive to run, and simplifying it could reduce costly bureaucracy. The change could also encourage more jobless people to look for work, because they won't have to worry about losing unemployment benefits. Some unemployed workers currently avoid part time jobs because even a small income boost could result in their unemployment benefits being canceled. "Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and ... self-employment are worthwhile no matter what," said Marjukka Turunen, the head of the legal unit at Kela, Finland's social insurance agency.
See also, http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/153316-what-we-can-learn-finland.html. “What We Can Learn From Finland’s Basic Income Experiment”. The report explains:
Olli Kangas, Kela’s coordinator for the program, told The Economist that it was currently in a state of neglect, comparing politicians’ actions to “small boys with toy cars who become bored and move on.”… India, the world’s largest democratic country, has endorsed the system — claiming in a report that it is “basically the way forward” — and is now considering the best way to introduce it to its populous [sic]. … The system is not without its skeptics, however. Experts question who would provide the money to fund such projects, asserting that a universal basic income of $10,000 a year per person could add approximately $3 trillion to national spending in the U.S. Individuals such as Mark Cuban and Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University, have suggested that we should optimize existing benefits systems. Gordon told the MIT Technology Review that his idea is to make “benefits more generous to reach a reasonable minimum, expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and greatly expand preschool care for children who grow up in poverty.”
See, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/universal-basic-free-monthly-income-utopian-switzerland-silicon-valley-finland-canada-122210548.html. “Free income is a great idea — unfortunately, it sort of doesn’t work”, Melody Hahm, 6/7/16. Hahm writes: “in theory, the idea of having a fall-back income foundation sounds delightful. But what most advocates aren’t getting specific about is where exactly this money would come from.” The Finnish experiment ended up with the realization it would require an unacceptable and potentially destructive increase in an already high taxation system.
Oregon’s voters just rejected a state proposal to create a UBI system. The negative vote was very substantial. There are several privately funded small scale experiments around the US but the Oregon rejection is interesting given that state’s extremely liberal population. Alaska has a sort of annual dividend payout from oil revenues the state receives from petroleum producers from Alaska’s reserves.
An initial test of a UBI proposal in Europe came in mid-2016 when Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce UBI in that nation. A report on the voting outcome does not bode well for UBI proponents, at least as of this time as the proposal was rejected by an 80 percent to 20 percent margin. The report on the highly negative vote explained:
Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin … a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation. Supporters had said introducing a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,563) per adult and 625 francs per child under 18 no matter how much they work would promote human dignity and public service. Opponents, including the government, said it would cost too much and weaken the economy. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/swiss-voters-decide-guaranteed-monthly-income-plan-103534182--business.html.
An obvious problem with UBI, and one at the heart of the Swiss electorate’s 80 to 20 percent rejection of the Universal Basic Income proposal in that nation, is that if we are honest about human behavior, the idea that a core of hardworking people would voluntarily allow themselves to be taxed to subsidize others who opted out of the system simply because they did not want to work at all or in a traditional job is highly questionable.
The potential problems with UBI voiced by Swiss voters—are ones of ethics, human nature, the prevalence of free riders and freeloaders, rampant abuses and dishonesty about how humans actually behave. The concerns of cost and freeloading are at the core of the UBI problem but they aren’t the only problems.
Even if it were financially possible to implement a comprehensive UBI program, as opposed to a limited and targeted version, there are significant political downsides. These include mistrust, cost, and the resentment many workers would feel if healthy individuals opted out of the workforce in order to “find themselves”, “have better things to do”, “I don’t like getting up before 10AM”, or “I can’t seem to find something that really excites me”. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/people-start-hating-their-jobs-at-age-35. “People Start Hating Their Jobs at Age 35: The shiny newness of life in the workforce begins to wear off”, Chris Stokel-Walker, 8/21/17. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/missouri-fast-food-workers-better-pay-popeyes-economics. “Fran works six days a week in fast food, and yet she's homeless: 'It's economic slavery'”, Dominic Rushe and Tom Silverstone, 8/21/17.
The growing epidemic of opioid, other drug, alcohol, and other addictions do not help support the debate about the viability of a UBI program because it suggests the likelihood of a growing “useless” or fully dependent segment of national populations in developed nations that represent a growing burden on the systems’ dwindling resources.
The Political, Moral, and Practical Justifications for UBI
Robert Skidelsky offers this insight into the two basic reasons some support the idea of a UBI.
UBI is a somewhat uneasy mix of two objectives: poverty relief and the rejection of work as the defining purpose of life. The first is political and practical; the second is philosophical or ethical. The main argument for UBI as poverty relief is, as it has always been, the inability of available paid work to guarantee a secure and decent existence for all. See, e.g., Robert Skidelsky, “A basic income could be the best way to tackle inequality”, 6/23/16. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/23/universal-basic-income-could-be-the-best-way-to-tackle-inequality.
Beyond cost and free riders living on the work of others, there is a serious issue of what kinds of values and behaviors will be the dominant characteristics of a population with too much time on their hands. In most Western nations there is a compassionate consensus that when people can’t find work but are willing to seek it or when health or medical reasons force them out of the workforce, support of such individuals and their families is legitimate and morally important.
There is compassion for those in real need, but limited tolerance or respect for those who are unwilling to contribute to the overall good of the society when they are capable of doing so. Other discussions of UBI include: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income. “Utopian thinking: the easy way to eradicate poverty”, Rutger Bregman, 3/6/17. http://www.pressherald.com/2017/03/05/to-panhandlers-program-may-offer-welcome-change-jobs/. “To Portland panhandlers, program may offer welcome change: Jobs”, Randy Billings, 3/5/17.
Even if a UBI system is initially implemented with the best and most compassionate intentions, there is a realistic possibility or even likelihood that it will quickly be co-opted into a “free lunch” or “get something for nothing” system for too many recipients. Skidelsky captured this idea in his observation that UBI only has a chance to work if those who are in control of capital are constrained by a radically new version of taxation in which the benefits generated by the AI/robotics transformation are extracted for the welfare of the community rather than primarily for the rich or exceptionally fortunate entrepreneurs such as Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Bezos or George Soros. He explains:
[A] UBI scheme can be designed to grow in line with the wealth of the economy. Automation is bound to increase profits, because machines that make human labour redundant require no wages and only minimal investment in maintenance. Unless we change our system of income generation, there will be no way to check the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and exceptionally entrepreneurial. A UBI that grows in line with capital productivity would ensure that the benefits of automation go to the many, not just to the few. See, e.g., Robert Skidelsky, “A basic income could be the best way to tackle inequality”, 6/23/16. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/23/universal-basic-income-could-be-the-best-way-to-tackle-inequality.
“Atlas Shrugs” Again
Another serious problem with the Universal Basic Income approach is that we have lost the ability to “just say no”. Our political leaders use political expenditures and entitlements to buy votes and placate their constituencies. Inevitably, Universal Basic Income is a strategy that will generate significant social conflict. Stress and resentment can be expected to grow as coalitions of identity groups seek to increasingly benefit their own members and deny benefits to others. Power comes through control of the purse strings.
A UBI system would rapidly become akin to what Ayn Rand wrote about in Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (Random House, 1957). In Rand’s provocative and insightful work aimed at the excesses of Soviet Communism and government-controlled Socialism, the government increasingly imposed heavy controls and financial burdens on the most inventive and productive in society. In Atlas Shrugged, this progressed to the point that the creators and innovators devised ways to protect against excessive exploitation.
Rand’s insights offer the other side of the “coin” of human behavior. As Aristotle warned in describing democracy as an impure form of government--the numerical majority in a democracy inevitably comes to vote for actions that progressively give themselves larger and larger pieces of the pie. Rand goes further and describes a system where those who create and possess wealth ultimately take action to avoid paying more than they wish—which will nearly always be less than others are demanding.
UBI has other side effects that will end up harming our political community. One, of course, is that once government begins giving “free” money to people, interest groups immediately emerge that are aggressively dedicated to their permanent and “rightful” receipt of what is immediately considered an entitlement. It is almost impossible to reverse such decisions even when they turn out to be wrong. But even that fact pales in comparison to other consequences created by the idling of a very large segment of a nation’s population as jobs are destroyed by AI/robotics.
The Loss of Focus and Discipline Provided by Work
The loss of the focus and discipline of work that will occur without work activity and a strong community to provide structure and values is destructive, both individually and socially. Accountability and responsibility are burdens to be avoided from the perspective of most of the human race. This means that a society with the majority of people out of work is not going to be a “happy” one. Most people want to be told what to do, be informed about what they should believe, guided about how they should behave, and have something to fill up their otherwise idle hours.
Very Few People Actually Seek Full Self-Realization
While philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes may have been addicted to lives of productive thought, and assumed that all people shared, or at least would share their perspective on the desirability of fullest self-actualization if only they were freed from the burdens of work, reality is different. Earlier, Aristotle offered the concept of eudemonia in his assumption that a supposedly natural impetus of humans was to seek the highest levels of realization they were capable of achieving. This quest was assumed to be best achieved without the need to be diverted by the daily grind of compensated work required for subsistence.
“Free Riders” and Exploding Dependency
Even with the criticisms voiced above, UBI in some form and extent or by some name will almost certainly be necessary and inevitable if conditions continue to disintegrate as many millions of people in the US and Western Europe lack jobs and have too much time on their hands. The unavoidable outcome of a UBI system will involve a significant number of freeloaders feeding off the efforts of the most productive remaining workers and the benefits generated by innovators and economic risk takers who make the system of production run. As we witnessed with the hundreds of billions stolen through fake claims and criminal activity in the COVID-19 subsidy payouts, many will seek to profit by setting up scams to steal or extort the UBI distributions. Many others will bilk or set up schemes to steal from those who depend on the stipends.
Most people are not hard-driving innovative self-starters in the mold of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson and similarly driven innovators and risk takers. Most people want to be led or directed. A society without the kinds of internal discipline and other lessons provided by work, and without the social mobility and opportunity a system of merit-based work produces is a system without integrity or positive core principles. It lacks shared positive values and the ability to collaborate to achieve jointly held goals. Cut loose from directive structures, far too many of us flounder aimlessly while lost in a desert of purposelessness.
Even if we do “find a purpose” too often it is in the form of ideology, fanaticism, addiction, and socially divisive tribal identity allegiances driven by a distorted concept of “diversity”. Blind faith that provides us with answers is far easier than continually questioning the nature, purpose and meaning of our existence. Blind faith allows us to avoid the responsibility of developing our essential selves to our highest levels of potential. Reality is scary for most people. Escapism, denial and addiction offer a refuge. Work and religion at least offer structure and a way to fill in time and mute the despair of meaninglessness.
The pursuit of security, pleasure, status and power are dominant human motivations. So are addictions and the desire to escape from the harsh and demanding conditions of reality. There are reasons why we now have a growing opioid and heroin addiction epidemic that has seized millions in its grasp. Similarly, the addictions to electronic devices, games, the Internet, Facebook, and virtual reality applications by which we are surrounded offer examples of how many people freed from the disciplines of work or principled belief systems such as offered by traditional religion will spend their time. New studies are finding that the addiction to games, electronic devices and the Internet is generating isolation and a pervasive sense of loneliness, alienation and depression.
We Have Become a Nation of Addicts
In our age of addiction, virtual reality, immersion in identity groups, anger, loneliness, deception, and incredible superficiality, it is lunacy to base support for a Universal Basic Income program on a flawed philosophical ideal about human behavior. It is equally unwise to think that a population put out of work due to the job eliminating progression of AI/robotics, and with limited options in terms of productive opportunities, would do anything but act according to Sigmund Freud’s “pleasure/pain” insight and become even more addicted to “forbidden pleasures” rather than to a personal search for spiritual or philosophical enlightenment.
The problem with philosophical idealists is that they do not represent the great bulk of human society. Rather than pursuing philosophical ideals, many people are addicted to such things as the pursuit of drugs, alcohol, opioids, sex, power and dominance, material goods, pornography, soap operas, IPhones, computer applications and games. It certainly isn’t a positive argument for UBI that more than one in eight people in the US are alcoholics, that we are suffering from opioid and depression epidemics, or that more than half the US population is obese. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/alcoholism-epidemic-more-1-8-americans-are-now-alcoholics-1634315. “Alcoholism epidemic: More than 1 in 8 Americans are now alcoholics: Alcoholism has risen 49% in the US in just 11 years, national surveys find”, Martha Henriques, 8/9/17.
Just for “fun” see also, http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2015/10/06/fda-oxycontin-heroin-opioid-addiction-crisis. Tom Ashbrook, “American Opioid Addiction Keeps Growing: “American addiction. From prescription painkillers to heroin. The numbers are staggering. Why?” 10/6/15. https://www.forbes.com/sites/reenitadas/2017/07/17/goodbye-loneliness-hello-sexbots-how-can-robots-transform-human-sex/2/#3b85a22962e3. “Goodbye Loneliness, Hello Sexbots! How Can Robots Transform Human Sex?”, Reenita Das, 7/17/17. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/29/oculus-touch-control-future-vr. “Why the future of VR is all down to touch control: The new controllers from Oculus represent a glimpse of a virtual reality people can really lose themselves in”, Samuel Gibbs, 12/29/16.
An Example: The Incredibly Destructive Power of Social Media Addictions
As we rapidly transform into a radically different kind of society filled with people who are increasingly living in a sort of electronic and chemical “dream world” think about the consequences. I tried to discuss some of the issues in a Substack post of “Wall-E Meets Walden” [https://davidrbarnhizer.substack.com/p/wall-e-meets-walden] but what is being created as we stand and watch is frightening in terms of the outcomes for people and the ability of our society to evolve in a positive way.
We are being controlled by an interlocked set of forces going by a variety of names such as Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, and a bunch of other “bigs” and we are doing virtually nothing to handle what is going on. I challenge readers to think about what the three studies described below portend for us and our societies.
“Social Media and the Anxious Generation: Jonathan Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” describes how social media has harmed our youth. He also suggests how we might move beyond these problems.” Linda Wiegenfeld, 6/16/2024. https://www.theepochtimes.com/bright/social-media-and-the-anxious-generation-5665491?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=lead-story-epochtv-trending-0.
Mr. Haidt says that the planners didn’t take [the] vulnerability of children into account. … Mr. Haidt … claims that two trends—overprotection in the real world and under-protection in the virtual world—are the major reasons that children born after 1995 experience high rates of anxiety. Gen Z was the first generation in history to go through puberty with a portal in their pockets that called them away from real life and into an alternative universe that Mr. Haidt calls exciting, addictive, and unstable. The time children spend playing without this invention and having actual social contact has been greatly reduced.”
Physical and Social Deprivation
Phone-based childhoods are deprived of physical play. Mr. Haidt points out that the healthiest play is outdoors and includes occasional physical risk-taking and thrilling adventure. These children have lost a connection that is essential for mental health. With social media, superficial connections to everyone in the world replaces deep connections.
Attention Fragmentation and Addiction
Mr. Haidt says the average teenager gets 192 alerts or notifications per day from social media and communication apps. People can’t really multitask; all they can do is shift their attention back and forth. This never-ending stream of interruptions—this constant fragmentation of attention—takes a toll on their ability to think deeply. Mr. Haidt quotes Dr. Anna Lembke, the medical director of addiction medicine at Stanford University and chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic. “The smartphone is the modern-day hypodermic needle, delivering digital dopamine 24/7 for a wired generation,” Dr. Lembke said. When a person engages in a pleasurable activity, the brain releases a hormone called dopamine. The flood of dopamine to the brain when experiencing a pleasurable stimulus reinforces a desire to engage with the stimulus more.
“Is Social Media Addictive? Here’s What the Science Says. A major lawsuit against Meta has placed a spotlight on our fraught relationship with online social information.” Matt Richtel, 10/25/2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/health/social-media-addiction.html.
A group of 41 states and the District of Columbia filed suit on Tuesday against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, contending that the company knowingly used features on its platforms to cause children to use them compulsively, even as the company said that its social media sites were safe for young people. “Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage and ultimately ensnare youth and teens,” the states said in their lawsuit filed in federal court. “Its motive is profit.” The accusations in the lawsuit raise a deeper question about behavior: Are young people becoming addicted to social media and the internet?
What Makes Social Media So Compelling?
Experts who study internet use say that the magnetic allure of social media arises from the way the content plays to our neurological impulses and wiring, such that consumers find it hard to turn away from the incoming stream of information. David Greenfield, a psychologist and founder of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction in West Hartford, Conn., said the devices lure users with some powerful tactics. One is “intermittent reinforcement,” which creates the idea that a user could get a reward at any time. But when the reward comes is unpredictable. “Just like a slot machine,” he said. … [Y]oung people are particularly at risk, because the brain regions that are involved in resisting temptation and reward are not nearly as developed in children and teenagers as in adults. “They’re all about impulse and not a lot about the control of that impulse,” Dr. Greenfield said of young consumers.
“Research trends in social media addiction and problematic social media use: A bibliometric analysis”, Alfonso Pellegrino, Alessandro Stasi, and Veera Bhatiasevi. Front Psychiatry, Online published, 11/10/2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9707397/.
Among the 7.91 billion people in the world as of 2022, 4.62 billion active social media users, and the average time individuals spent using the internet was 6 h 58 min per day with an average use of social media platforms of 2 h and 27 min. Despite their increasing ubiquity in people's lives and the incredible advantages they offer to instantly interact with people, an increasing number of studies have linked social media use to negative mental health consequences, such as suicidality, loneliness, and anxiety. Numerous sources have expressed widespread concern about the effects of social media on mental health.
A 2011 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) identifies a phenomenon known as Facebook depression which may be triggered “when preteens and teens spend a great deal of time on social media sites, such as Facebook, and then begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression”. Similarly, the UK's Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) claims that there is a clear evidence of the relationship between social media use and mental health issues based on a survey of nearly 1,500 people between the ages of 14–24.
According to some authors, the increase in usage frequency of social media significantly increases the risks of clinical disorders described (and diagnosed) as “Facebook depression,” “fear of missing out” (FOMO), and “social comparison orientation” (SCO). Other risks include sexting, social media stalking, cyber-bullying, privacy breaches, and improper use of technology. Therefore, social media's impact on subjective well-being is a source of concern worldwide and calls for up-to-date investigations of the role social media plays with regard to mental health. Many studies have found that habitual social media use may lead to addiction and thus negatively affect adolescents' school performance, social behavior, and interpersonal relationships. As a result of addiction, the user becomes highly engaged with online activities motivated by an uncontrollable desire to browse through social media pages and “devoting so much time and effort to it that it impairs other important life areas”.