Platform effects on mental health increasingly appear inseparable from polarization effects. Research finding that divisive content increases both political animosity and feelings of sadness and anger suggests that algorithmic polarization represents a mental health crisis alongside a democratic one.
Among over 1,000 users during the 2024 presidential election, those exposed to more divisive content reported feeling sadder and angrier after just one week. These emotional effects accompanied polarization but represent distinct harms affecting psychological wellbeing independent of political attitudes.
The scale of potential mental health impacts is staggering. If billions of users globally experience similar emotional effects from engagement-optimized algorithms, the accumulated suffering represents a massive public health problem that current systems neither adequately measure nor address.
Mental health implications also affect democratic functioning. Citizens experiencing chronic sadness and anger make poorer political decisions. Depression reduces political participation. Anger prompts support for extreme policies. When algorithms systematically induce negative emotional states to generate engagement, they degrade both individual wellbeing and collective decision-making capacity.
Current regulatory frameworks treat mental health and democratic impacts separately, but the research suggests they’re interconnected. Interventions addressing one dimension likely affect others. Regulations requiring healthier algorithms for democratic reasons might simultaneously improve mental health. Conversely, mental health protections might reduce polarization as beneficial side effects. Recognizing these connections could strengthen arguments for comprehensive platform governance reforms.