What do tobacco products and alcohol have in common with apps like Instagram and X? U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murphy believes that, like controlled substances, social media platforms warrant a surgeon general’s warning label. But unlike tobacco and alcohol, this idea of a social media warning label is based on fear, not evidence, and could prevent real progress from being made to help youth and families navigate the vast social media landscape.

While concerns over the effects of social media on children are abundant, actual evidence and data supporting a correlation between social media and harm is sparse. Studies on the mental health effects of social media on teens often lack nuance and fail to acknowledge that teens are turning to social media in the absence of parental support and mental health services. To this point, the American Psychological Association concluded, “Using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people. Adolescents’ lives online both reflect and impact their offline lives. In most cases, the effects of social media are dependent on adolescents’ own personal and psychological characteristics and social circumstances.”

The evidence of clear causation needed to justify slapping a menacing warning label on every media platform just isn’t there.

While warning labels on controlled substances are there because they are inherently harmful, social media is not without its benefits. It can serve as a resource for those in need and can be a positive opportunity for self-expression. Applying the same label to an online forum as a tobacco product could prevent people from accessing the helpful sides of social media. Another risk of a social media label is that the surgeon general’s label loses its legitimacy to warn people of actual dangers. If both tobacco products and a site that hosts support groups, political activism, and mental health resources are labeled in the same way, does the label really mean anything?

Murphy’s proposal includes a push for Congressional action. Applying a fear mongering label to media platforms will only encourage well intentioned politicians to create new regulations in hopes of comforting their concerned constituents, but without actually addressing mental health and behavior. An onslaught of new red tape will mean that social media companies and users will have to navigate a bureaucracy of labels, restrictions, and compliance procedures instead of actively working to optimize their sites according to what consumers desire.

While social media is not without its pitfalls, action by Congress to scare parents and children will not fix any of the issues with which families often grapple. We don’t put warning labels on candy because, while harmful in excess, it can also be a sweet treat that children enjoy. Parents are tasked with ensuring that their children use moderation when it comes to sugar. If concerns arise, families can work with health care providers to treat those concerns. Much like candy, social media can be harmless, and if problems do arise, there are treatments outside of government intervention available.

Thankfully, there are abundant resources available to help keep children safe online that do not include a government mandated warning label. Parents and families, empowered by tools that best suit their specific needs, can assess their child’s offline and online life far better than the Surgeon General ever could. Labels are helpful for things like cigarettes, but don’t give parents and families the tools they need to help their children safely leverage technology in this increasingly digital world.