Social Media isn't a substitute for healthy social interaction which becomes very evident when one looks at the psychological outcomes of people who use it heavily, particular say, teenage girls.

Most social media interaction isn't genuine conversation between peers but a sort of status contest in which people pull up façades and present idealised versions of themselves, mostly strongly influenced by whatever is trending within society at large.

An important finding of loneliness research has repeatedly been that loneliness is not equivalent to merely not being in contact with others. One can be alone but not lonely, and one can be lonely while superficially in contact with others.

Sure, I'm not suggesting that it's an ideal, or adequate substitute, but rather that it may function as a coping technique. A temporary band-aid.

In the absence of genuine conversation or a close social relationship, this may be a stop-gap.

Like Wilson in Castaway. It's a crutch to get someone through the long, lonely times.

> Most social media interaction isn't genuine conversation between peers but a sort of status contest

But exactly the same is true for regular communications, especially for teenagers, whose whole life is making impression on their peers.

There is a difference, though. In real life, a lot of your conversations are either one-to-one, or in a very small group of people who are not obsessed with impressions. You are freer there.

On the social networks, the peer group is much larger and much more attentive. Private conversations can be had, but public conversations with massive audience of listeners are way more common than IRL.

Most in-person social interaction is ingenuine in the same ways, but it's easier to be less genuine (more fake) over low bandwidth media like text. (And actually it's much harder to be genuine at low bandwidth, too)