Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Numerous summaries of the findings of the Molly Russell inquest conclude that the case is now made for direct action on regulation. However, there has been little discussion about what specifically such regulation might entail, or the challenges of implementation.
For sure there is resistance from the tech companies, but an additional dilemma is that much of the content under consideration (about depression, self-harm and suicidal thinking) is seen as helpful by those who use social media – valued for its 24/7 availability and anonymity and for the supportive nature of sharing and viewing user-generated content. The challenge therefore is to eliminate the negative impact of social media without blocking access to its helpful elements.
A central issue is algorithmic pushing which increases duration and intensity of exposure. Neither in government statements nor elsewhere are there specific suggestions about what limits should be set on these quantitative aspects of social media viewing. In relation to moderation of content, characteristics like glamourising, normalising and encouraging are used without definition and yet proposed as the main criteria on which any duty of care will be judged. Monitoring and responding to problematic patterns of use is a key issue in debates about online gambling – how to achieve it without driving away those who resent the idea of surveillance and loss of privacy?
There is emerging research in these questions and health professionals should lead in arguing for its inclusion in decision-making, which should not be left to Ofcom and the courts.
Social media, self-harm and suicide: we should be promoting research-informed decision making about how and what to regulate.
Dear Editor
Numerous summaries of the findings of the Molly Russell inquest conclude that the case is now made for direct action on regulation. However, there has been little discussion about what specifically such regulation might entail, or the challenges of implementation.
For sure there is resistance from the tech companies, but an additional dilemma is that much of the content under consideration (about depression, self-harm and suicidal thinking) is seen as helpful by those who use social media – valued for its 24/7 availability and anonymity and for the supportive nature of sharing and viewing user-generated content. The challenge therefore is to eliminate the negative impact of social media without blocking access to its helpful elements.
A central issue is algorithmic pushing which increases duration and intensity of exposure. Neither in government statements nor elsewhere are there specific suggestions about what limits should be set on these quantitative aspects of social media viewing. In relation to moderation of content, characteristics like glamourising, normalising and encouraging are used without definition and yet proposed as the main criteria on which any duty of care will be judged. Monitoring and responding to problematic patterns of use is a key issue in debates about online gambling – how to achieve it without driving away those who resent the idea of surveillance and loss of privacy?
There is emerging research in these questions and health professionals should lead in arguing for its inclusion in decision-making, which should not be left to Ofcom and the courts.
Competing interests: No competing interests