Latest social media advice: skip the sunscreen. Experts disagree.

A recent study shows how adolescents diagnosis types shape their social media experiences

• Teens with diagnosed mental health conditions spend roughly 50 minutes more on social media each day.

• Those with internalizing conditions report more social comparison, mood shifts from feedback, and less satisfaction with friend counts.

• Externalizing conditions are linked mainly to time spentbut not the same emotional effects seen in other youth.

Concerns about social medias effects on young people are widespread, but most research focuses on healthy teens rather than those already experiencing mental health conditions.

A recent U.K. study led by the University of Cambridge changes that, zeroing in on how adolescents with clinically assessed diagnoses use and feel about social media differently from their peers without such conditions.

The link between social media use and youth mental health is hotly debated, but hardly any studies look at young people already struggling with clinical-level mental health symptoms, researcher Luisa Fassi, said in a news release.

Our study doesnt establish a causal link, but it does show that young people with mental health conditions use social media differently than young people without a condition. This could be because mental health conditions shape the way adolescents interact with online platforms, or perhaps social media use contributes to their symptoms. At this stage, we cant say which comes first only that these differences exist.

The study

The researchers analysed data from the 2017 NHSDigital Mental Health of Children and Young People (MHCYP) survey, involving 3,340 adolescents aged 11 to 19 in England. Importantly, mental health conditions werent selfreported trained clinicians assessed participants via structured interviews with teens, and sometimes their parents and teachers too.

They didnt just measure screen time. The study captured both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of social media use how long teens reported spending online, but also how they felt about it. This included social comparison, mood effects from likes/comments, satisfaction with online friendships, self-control, honest self-disclosure, and authentic self-presentation.

Participants were grouped into those with any mental health condition, and further split into internalizing (anxiety, depression, PTSD) versus externalizing (ADHD, conduct disorders). The researchers then compared these groups to peers without conditions across multiple usage dimensions.

The results

The group with any mental health condition reported spending notably more time on social media on average, about 50 extra minutes a day compared to peers without a condition.

When it comes to emotional experiences, those with internalizing conditions stood out. Nearly 48% reported frequent upward social comparisons online about twice the rate of teens without mental health conditions (~24%).

Around 28% said their mood shifted because of social media feedback (likes/comments), compared with about 13% of peers. They also felt less control over their time, and were less satisfied with the number of online friends, and less able to share honestly or authentically online.

In contrast, teens with externalizing conditions like ADHD mainly differed from peers only in time spent online other engagement and emotional dimensions showed no significant differences.

So many factors can be behind why someone develops a mental health condition, and it's very hard to get at whether social media use is one of them, Fassi said.

A huge question like this needs lots of research that combines experimental designs with objective social media data on what young people are actually seeing and doing online. We need to understand how different types of social media content and activities affect young people with a range of mental health conditions such as those living with eating disorders, ADHD, or depression. Without including these understudied groups, we risk missing the full picture.

Voice service providers warned that they could be cut off from routing calls

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

Operation Robocall Roundup launched nationwide this week, as a coalitionof 51 attorneys general sentwarning letters to 37 voice service providers, demanding they immediatelytake actionto stopillegal robocalls from being routed through their networks.

Proposal would cut SSI for disabled people and seniors who receive SNAP food benefits

• Nearly 400,000 older and disabled low-income Americans could loseSSI support under a proposed Trump Administration rule.

• The plan targets recipients living in SNAP-dependent households, undoing a recent rule.

• Critics say the move will devastate vulnerable families while saving less than a days worth of recent tax breaks for the wealthy.

The Trump Administration is preparing to propose a sweeping rollback of protections for low-income seniors and people with disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), potentially cutting benefits or stripping eligibility for nearly 400,000 Americans, according to a report from theCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities. The new rule would disproportionately affect recipients who live with family or friendsoften in homes that rely on food assistance programs like SNAP to make ends meet.

According to a 2024 Social Security Administration analysis, more than 275,000 people could see their benefits reducedoften by around $300 a monthwhile another 100,000 could lose eligibility entirely. This comes as part of a broader Republican-backed legislative push that includes deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, raising alarms among social policy experts and disability advocates.

Reversing a safety net

At the heart of the controversy is a rule finalized just last year that updated how the Social Security Administration defines a public assistance household. This rule allowed SNAP participationa widely used and rigorously means-tested benefitto qualify a household as financially unable to support an SSI recipient. It reflected modern economic conditions: while far fewer families receive cash welfare today than in 1980, many more now rely on SNAP as their primary safety net.

The Trump Administrations new proposal would roll back that change, reviving outdated 1980 standards and once again disqualifying SNAP as evidence of financial need. That move would subject recipients who live in households receiving SNAP to benefit cuts under whats known as the "in-kind support and maintenance" (ISM) ruleessentially penalizing them for receiving non-cash help like shelter or food.

Advocates warn this would force families to make heartbreaking choices: provide housing for a disabled or elderly loved one and risk slashing their only income, or force them to seek institutional care or homelessness.

The effects of the rule would be immediate.. Take the case of a disabled adult with Down Syndrome living with her low-income parents who receive SNAP. Currently, she receives the full federal SSI benefit of $967 per monthalready below the poverty line. Under the proposed rule, her benefits could be cut by a third simply because her parents provide her a bedroom. That would leave her with less than $700 a month.

On top of the financial toll, families would face a labyrinth of paperwork. Recipients would be required to report any changes in household composition, living arrangements, or shared expensescreating more red tape for the Social Security Administrations already overstretched staff and increasing the likelihood of over- and underpayments.

Administrative nightmare, minimal savings

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which published the report, points out that the expected savings from this rule change would barely cover the cost of a single day of the Trump Administrations 2025 tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile, the administrative burden of implementing the rollbackincluding tracking complex living arrangements and verifying household incomeswould cost the SSA time and resources it cannot spare.

"This rule isnt just cruelits inefficient and wasteful," the report states. "It targets some of the countrys most vulnerable people to save a rounding error in the federal budget."

Advocates are urging the administration to reconsider. "The SSA should build on its recent progress, not regress to standards from a time when todays safety net didnt exist," the report concludes. "Families who are struggling to care for disabled or elderly relatives need more supportnot more penalties and red tape."

Consumers were promised huge earnings but the results were similar to most multi-level-marketing schemes

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Three defendants will pay $2.5 million to settle FTC and Nevada allegations over deceptive earnings claims tied to a financial training MLM scheme.

• The group, operating under names like IM Mastery Academy and IYOVIA, targeted young people via social media with promises of luxury lifestyles.

• The FTC says the scheme caused more than $1.2 billion in consumer harm since 2018.

Three key figures behind a sprawling financial training and alleged multi-level marketing (MLM) schemeonce known as IM Mastery Academyhave agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle allegations brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the state of Nevada. The regulators say the trio used deceptive income promises and glamorized social media marketing to lure consumersespecially young adultsinto buying financial education packages and joining a recruitment-driven business opportunity.

The defendantsGlobal Dynasty Network, LLC, Jason Brown, and Matthew Rosawere top earners and promoters of the program, according to the joint federal-state complaint. The companies and individuals operated under a variety of names, including IYOVIA, IM Academy, iMarketsLive, and IM Mastery Academy, and promised participants the opportunity to profit through forex trading and crypto education, along with lucrative commissions for recruiting others.

In reality, the FTC says the business relied on exaggerated or baseless income claims, with few consumers making real money. Since 2018, total consumer losses linked to the scheme have exceeded $1.2 billion, the agency alleges.

Luxuries, lies, and MLM profits

Brown and Rosa, described as among the highest-paid promoters in the scheme, allegedly pocketed more than $36 million in profitsmost of it funneled through their company, Global Dynasty Network. The FTC says Brown even hired a third party to post fake positive reviews online under a pseudonym to boost the companys image.

Their promotional strategy relied heavily on aspirational lifestyle marketing, including posts on Instagram and TikTok showcasing luxury cars, international travel, and high-end shoppingimplying that these were funded by trading gains or MLM commissions. In reality, many participants lost money or failed to earn back their initial investment.

The defendants also trained other marketers to make similar deceptive claims while avoiding detection, the complaint says.

The terms of the settlement

Under the proposed settlement, the three parties are barred from making earnings claims about any product or service unless they have written evidence that the results are typical. They are also permanently banned from:

• Misrepresenting earnings or product performance in any business they operate or promote.

• Violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including false claims about profitability.

• Offering negative option services (subscriptions that renew automatically) without clear disclosures and affirmative consent from consumers.

While the judgment against the trio totals $36 million, that amount is suspended after they pay $2.5 million, based on their reported financial condition. If they are found to have misrepresented their finances, the full amount could become due.

A broader warning on MLMs

The case underscores ongoing concerns about deceptive marketing in the MLM and financial education spaces, particularly those that promise wealth through crypto, forex, or online investing. The FTC has been increasingly aggressive in policing such schemes in recent years, including actions against companies like Success By Health and Digital Altitude.

Consumers are urged to approach MLM and trading education opportunities with caution, particularly when high earnings claims are not backed by clear evidence, and when profitability appears tied more to recruitment than actual product value.

Tip: Always verify earnings claims before buying into a business opportunity. If someone flaunts luxury goods as evidence of success, ask for documentationnot just Instagram posts.