Debate: Social media content moderation may do more harm than good for youth mental health.

Most social media platforms censor and moderate content related to mental illness to protect users from harm, though this may be at the expense of potential positive outcomes for youth mental health. Current evidence does not offer strong support for the relationship between censoring mental health content and preventing harm. In fact, existing moderation strategies can perpetuate negative consequences for mental health by creating isolated and polarized communities where at-risk youth remain exposed to harmful content, such as pro-eating disorder communities that use lexical variants to evade censorship. Social media censorship of content related to mental illness can also silence positive discourse about mental health, create barriers to accessing online support and resources, and hinder research efforts on youth well-being. Social media content about mental health can have important positive impacts on youth mental health by facilitating help-seeking, depicting positive coping strategies, and promoting a sense of belonging for struggling youth, but these benefits are minimized under existing moderation and censorship practices. This article presents a call to action for evidence-based social media policies and for practitioners to consider the clinical implications of social media engagement when connecting with young patients.

Social robotics for children: an investigation of manufacturers' claims.

As the market for commercial children's social robots grows, manufacturers' claims around the functionality and outcomes of their products have the potential to impact consumer purchasing decisions. In this work, we qualitatively and quantitatively assess the content and scientific support for claims about social robots for children made on manufacturers' websites. A sample of 21 robot websites was obtained using location-independent keyword searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing from April to July 2021. All claims made on manufacturers' websites about robot functionality and outcomes (n = 653 statements) were subjected to content analysis, and the quality of evidence for these claims was evaluated using a validated quality evaluation tool. Social robot manufacturers made clear claims about the impact of their products in the areas of interaction, education, emotion, and adaptivity. Claims tended to focus on the child rather than the parent or other users. Robots were primarily described in the context of interactive, educational, and emotional uses, rather than being for health, safety, or security. The quality of the information used to support these claims was highly variable and at times potentially misleading. Many websites used language implying that robots had interior thoughts and experiences; for example, that they would love the child. This study provides insight into the content and quality of parent-facing manufacturer claims regarding commercial social robots for children.