Minnesota is following in New York’s footsteps with a new law that requires mental health warning labels on social media platforms. Before accessing their favorite apps, Minnesotans will soon be forced to “acknowledge the potential for harm and choose to proceed to the social media platform despite the risk.”
As Norm Singleton writes in RealClearMarkets, this is far more than a public health campaign—it’s a troubling step toward compelled speech, tech censorship, and the steady expansion of the nanny state.
“Earlier this year, in the case of Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. (2025), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Texas law requiring a warning label on ‘adult’ web sites. The court was following the Supreme Court precedent that the government can only compel speech if the speech is ‘purely factual and uncontroversial information.’ Claims that social media use endangers mental health are neither uncontroversial nor entirely factual.”
In fact, the data behind the push for these laws is far from conclusive.
“Statistician Aaron Brown analyzed the studies used by psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt to support his call for government action to protect young people’s mental health by regulating their social media use. Brown found that some of the studies have ‘egregious errors.’ One study he cites ‘clearly screwed up its data coding,’ while another ‘drew all its relevant data from study subjects who checked “zero” for everything relevant in a survey.’”
And even if the data were perfect, they explain very little:
“The studies only explain one to two percent of the cases of childhood depression.”
Meanwhile, proponents of government intervention ignore the well-documented benefits of social media: connection, community, and access to information. They frame these platforms solely as digital poisons—while disregarding contrary findings:
“A report from the University of Florida found that children with smartphones are more likely to spend ‘face to face’ time with their peers than children without smartphones. The study also found that children with smartphones are less likely to have self-image problems or struggle with depression.”
Critics of social media often point to rising youth depression rates without acknowledging the “elephant in the room”: COVID-19 lockdowns and school closures, which isolated children from their peers and upended daily life. In that context, social media may have served as a lifeline, not a threat.
Yes, excessive social media use can cause problems—but those are best addressed at home, not through federal regulation. As Singleton writes:
“Parents should monitor their child’s social media use to make sure the child is getting the benefits of social media while avoiding online dangers such as predators, cyber bullies, and trolls.”
“Fortunately, a wide variety of tools exist to help parents protect their children from inappropriate content. Adults do not need warning labels or other government ‘guidance.’ In a free society, adults have the right to make wrong choices—like spending too much time on social media.”
At the end of the day, this debate isn’t just about technology—it’s about who gets to decide what’s best for you and your family.
“The upside of social media warning labels is that they may give young people a healthy skepticism about claims that the nanny state must restrict their liberty for their own good. This will make them less likely to support nanny state politicians and policies when they become voters.”
The Market Institute agrees: government mandates won’t protect our kids—but they will erode free speech and personal responsibility. It’s time to push back.
Read the full article at RealClear Markets by clicking here.
