Massive-scale emotional contagion is here and is a cocktail of narcissism and depression.

Once upon a time, I toured the country presenting at various professional conferences on inexpensive strategies that took advantage of social media. Without spending a dime on advertising on the platforms, I demonstrated how to position key individuals within organizations as thought leaders, even recording staged news-like interviews with their executives to boost their credibility. These individuals, myself included, garnered acclaim and a slew of business because the content was designed to influence social media users to take action. There wasn’t–and still isn’t– anything inherently wrong with the strategy, but this shift to relying so heavily on social media to support your business is actually contributing to the rise of narcissism in our modern, western world. How do we combat a culture that rewards narcissistic behaviors? We treat it as a healthcare issue and regulate it as such.

While I was busy navigating the various social media channels and their ever-changing algorithms, the social giants were busy making their own share of significant changes. In 2014, we were aware that Facebook was favoring content that made people more emotional. In fact, according to The Guardian , a study then concluded, "Emotions expressed by friends, via online social networks, influence our own moods, constituting, to our knowledge, the first experimental evidence for massive-scale emotional contagion via social networks." By February 2016, Facebook decided to move forward toying with user emotions and rolled out reactions, and according to Reuters , “The company said it would also use ‘Reactions’ to track user behavior and for ad delivery,” but ads would end up being the least of our concerns. The organic algorithms have been the underlying culprit toying with society, the very algorithms that prefer an angry reaction over a simple like. Zuckerberg himself even encouraged users in a public reply to use the angry reaction when they disliked something, knowing well this would make Facebook show similar content to the user more often. 

It isn’t just Facebook either, since Microsoft took over LinkedIn there have been greater similarities between the changes happening with the way information shows up in our feeds. The algorithms are driving division simply because they aren’t programmed to care what types of engagement might contribute to prolonged negative mental health impacts. As the adoption of social media usage grows so do the slew of mental health crisis that started long before COVID. Alarmingly, the rate of suicide-related thoughts and outcomes increased by 47% from 2008 to 2017 among young adults. The cost of using supposedly “free” social media is actually astronomical to both you the individual and to us as a society. Without considering the scarcity of mental health professionals, to begin with, costs of medication, visits to a clinic, or hospitalization are costs we as individuals are faced with when privileged enough to afford them. However, the true economic burden of mental disorders in particular—goes far beyond these “direct” diagnostic and treatment costs. Based on data from 2010 , the global direct and indirect economic costs of mental disorders were estimated to be a whopping $2.5 trillion. Importantly, the indirect costs ($1.7 trillion) are much higher than the direct costs of the treatment itself ($0.8 trillion). 

There are a number of platforms arguably robbing our economy, and without algorithmic regulation and more robust data privacy laws, these platforms are also systematically ripping apart communities in exchange for capital gain. It isn’t our speech that needs regulating, it is the very algorithms that push us to our breaking points that need it. Individuals with underlying narcissistic behaviors are turning to social media for gratification, further deepening their narcissistic attitudes, while others struggling with underlying depressive tendencies are being fed an onslaught of content designed to trigger those very feelings of intense depression .  

And if you think social media usage is a choice, think again. While you personally may not need to be on social media in order to survive, even when you’re not on the platforms the culture around you is still changing as a result of them. But what if your career is hinged on social media? That is, after all where my career launched, but even without being a marketer, I am not alone in the realization that your job search for higher-paying roles can be hinged on having a LinkedIn profile. Unsurprisingly, 44% of LinkedIn users take home more than $75,000 per year, which is considerably higher than the national median income. Still, think social media usage is a choice? Do you like making more money or less money? I know where I stand and here I am, still on LinkedIn, the last social platform standing on my repertoire of managed platforms. 

Globally, including here in the states , politicians are pushing for algorithmic legislation, but this is all new territory and so far none of the proposed actions are garnering much support. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, inaction will cost you one way or another, but what if we took a look at this issue from a healthcare perspective? Regulatory compliance could fall underneath the FDA with broader algorithmic updates centered around mental health outcomes. We regulate menstrual pads, why not algorithms too?

[P.S.] Can we re-regulate supplements while we're at it too? THANKS