Response

The Netflix series Adolescence explored misogyny, violence, alienation and the developmental vulnerabilities of adolescent boys. Nevertheless, much of public discourse surrounding the series simplified the premise into the idea that ‘social media harms children’. The accompanying study demonstrates how complex social and cultural anxieties become condensed into simplified media narratives, with reporting characterised by alarmist framing around the series, emotionally charged discourse and references to incel culture and toxic masculinity. These ideas were often severed from any evidence-informed recommendations. ^{Reference Bond, Ong, Natin, Lally and McNicholas1}

The study raises the broad and important question of whether contemporary reporting on youth mental health and technology reflects a form of moral panic in which media amplification and public health rhetoric converge to produce heightened social fear. ^{Reference Bond, Ong, Natin, Lally and McNicholas1} Moral panics have historically emerged around phenomena perceived to threaten social order, often generating disproportionate anxiety and simplified explanations for complex social problems. ^{Reference Hier2} In the current digital era, these narratives often adopt language from the fields of psychiatry and neuroscience, invoking buzzwords such as ‘brain damage’, ‘epidemic’, ‘radicalisation’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘developmental harm’. Such frameworks carry emotional and institutional weight, allowing public concern to acquire the status of scientific certainty even where evidence remains mixed or incomplete.

However, this does not mean that concerns about online harms are unfounded. Emerging literature suggests that algorithm-driven exposure to misogynistic or extremist content may contribute to maladaptive identity formation in vulnerable adolescent boys, particularly in the context of social isolation, insecure attachment, loneliness or poor emotional support. ^{Reference McNicholas and Harold3,Reference Sparks, Zidenberg and Olver4} Online communities organised around incel ideology can reinforce grievance-based thinking, externalisation of blame and hostility towards women while simultaneously providing a sense of belonging for socially alienated young men. ^{Reference Sparks, Zidenberg and Olver4}

Viewed through a biopsychosocial lens, misogyny, broadly defined as attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviours reflecting hostility, prejudice and/or contempt towards women, cannot be attributed solely to internet exposure. For a developing adolescent, sexual development and neurodevelopment are partly shaped by feelings of rejection, shame, loneliness and resentment. Family and peer relationships, gender and societal norms, as well as online communities also affect adolescent development. The relationship between social media use and adolescent mental health remains non-linear, multifactorial and highly contextual. ^{Reference McNicholas and Harold3}

What is particularly salient in both the public reaction to the series Adolescence and the accompanying study is the extent to which fears around technology itself are projected onto the structurally entrenched anxieties surrounding masculinity and violence. ^{Reference Bond, Ong, Natin, Lally and McNicholas1} Rather than engaging in a discussion of gender socialisation, emotional deprivation, alienation, economic insecurity or changing models of masculinity, public discourse gravitates toward smartphones, screens, algorithms and applications. Technological explanations are psychologically and politically attractive because they are concrete, externalisable and potentially actionable. It is easier to regulate phones than to confront entrenched forms of misogyny, social fragmentation or disruptions in parenting, emotional development and community support.

The field of psychiatry occupies a difficult position within these debates. Concerns regarding online misogyny, digital radicalisation and adolescent vulnerability are legitimate and should not be minimised or discounted. At the same time, utilising psychiatric authority risks inadvertently legitimising reductive narratives when complex forms of social suffering are framed primarily through technologically deterministic models. As McNicholas and Harold note, adolescent distress emerges not simply from screen exposure but from a broader erosion of developmental supports, including fewer opportunities for unstructured play, emotional attunement, real-world connection and timely access to mental health care. ^{Reference McNicholas and Harold3} Although there are limits to what psychiatrists are able to achieve clinically, the field of psychiatry can contribute to the public’s understanding of the economic, cultural, societal and technological pressures affecting young people, instead of merely pathologising an individual teen.

While screens are not intrinsically harmful, the same platforms that give teenagers connection and supportive communities can also expose them to radicalisation and misogynistic ideology. ^{Reference McNicholas and Harold3} Therefore, it is important to keep the benefits of online platforms while monitoring for harmful content.

The portrayal of the forensic child psychologist in Adolescence also reflects the difficult role occupied by mental health professionals within the current social climate surrounding toxic masculinity, online radicalisation and youth violence. The clinician functions not merely as a diagnostician of individual pathology, but as an observer of the broader developmental, familial and cultural forces shaping adolescent identity development. In this regard, the series resists offering a singular explanatory framework, instead presenting online misogyny as one element within a more complex matrix of alienation, emotional deprivation, vulnerability and social fragmentation.

The challenge, therefore, is not to dismiss concerns about social media or online misogyny, but to resist explanations that oversimplify the broader social and developmental dynamics involved. As noted by Rosenbaum and Zimmerman-Winslow, Adolescence also highlights the challenges families face in navigating parenting, masculinity and emotional development in the online age. ^{Reference Rosenbaum and Zimmerman-Winslow5}

Moral panic and legitimate social concern are not mutually exclusive. The cultural phenomenon surrounding Adolescence may reveal genuine social anxieties, but it also illustrates how quickly emotionally resonant narratives can outpace evidence and narrow public understanding. The task for psychiatry is not merely to identify risk, but to maintain complexity in the face of compelling oversimplification.