story
The study in question debates young teens, ages 11-13 and 13-15, well before college.
In my experience as a parent of young teens, while they're sensitive to climate issues and of course "suffered" [1] during the pandemic, they aren't politicized, don't care about house prices, and don't know what "inflation" even means.
What they do know is what TikTok is, and what it means to be excluded from a Whatsapp group, and to spend hours each day wondering how they should reply to a perceived slight on some Discord channel.
I successfully forbid FB, Instagram, Snapchat (I don't use them myself, at all) but can't really outlaw Whatsapp because all communications go through it.
It's an uphill battle but as a parent I'm extremely resentful to FAANG to put us all through this.
[1] I put this in quotes because my kids quite liked the lockdown; they didn't have to go to school and could play in the yard all day. (Of course their experience would have been different if we lived in a city with no yard.)
- - -
Edit: Many angry replies; it seems my original post failed to make its point clearly. Let's try again.
I was replying to a comment that said, in essence, that environmental factors (the economy, politics, climate change) were probably more to blame than social media as an explanation for teens' mental health.
As a parent of young teens, I disagree on that specific argument. I think social media is much more to blame than anything else, for harming teens' mental health.
But in no way do I dismiss the existence of said environmental factors, or their effects on the well-being of people, in actual terms as well as in consequences on our anxiety levels.