“Smoking kills.”
For years, this message was printed in large letters on cigarette packs. Then came photographs, health warnings, and campaigns that very directly showed the consequences of smoking.
Today, another question arises: Should we use similar mechanisms to warn young people about the risks associated with problematic social media use?
The idea may seem surprising. A cigarette and a smartphone are obviously not comparable in terms of health risks. Yet this parallel is attracting increasing interest from researchers and public health officials for another reason: in both cases, providing information without making people feel guilty and successfully changing ingrained behavior remains particularly difficult.
A study published in September 2026 adds new insights to the debate.
Warnings Built Directly Into Social Media Platforms
Researchers at Stanford Medicine tested different messages on 1,012 American adolescents and young adults aged 13 to 29.
The experiment did not simply involve asking participants what they thought about social media.
The researchers presented them with several warnings designed to appear directly within a social media platform, much like a pop-up window on Instagram.
The posts addressed topics such as mental health, anxiety, depression, sleep, body image, and problematic behaviors related to social media.
A message simply encouraging users to take a break from their screens was also included.
The results are interesting: warnings that clearly mention possible health consequences were considered more effective than a simple reminder to temporarily stop using the product.
Messages about mental health in general, depression, and anxiety yielded the most significant results. The researchers also found that these warnings increased participants’ awareness of the risks.
This does not yet prove that a teenager who uses TikTok for three hours a day will actually reduce their screen time after seeing a warning.
The study primarily measures perceptions of the message’s effectiveness and stated intent, rather than a sustained reduction in use over several months.
This distinction is essential.
Why does the comparison with tobacco keep coming up?
The researchers did not choose the health warning model at random.
For several decades, tobacco has been one of the most visible examples of a prevention policy in which consumers are directly confronted with the possible consequences of their behavior.
Prevention campaigns have gradually evolved.
The small written warnings were replaced by more visible messages. The packages then began to feature photographs and, in several countries, an increasingly standardized design.
But no single warning is enough on its own to eliminate an addiction.
A person addicted to nicotine may be fully aware of the cardiovascular and cancer risks associated with smoking and still continue to smoke.
This is one of the key lessons in addiction prevention: simply being aware of a risk does not automatically mean you will be able to change your behavior.
This observation could also be useful when considering social media.
Saying “it’s dangerous” isn’t always enough
Teenagers generally know that they spend a lot of time on their phones.
Showing him his screen time every day doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll change his habits.
Why?
Because social media serves multiple purposes at once.
They’re used to chat with friends, discover videos, keep up with the news, be entertained, feel a sense of belonging to a group, or simply to fight boredom.
So the problem isn’t just the number of minutes spent on an app.
We also need to understand why we automatically go back there.
The comparison with cigarettes becomes more interesting here.
Smokers don’t just consume nicotine. Over the years, they often associate cigarettes with coffee, stress, work breaks, meals, or time spent with friends.
Similarly, unlocking your phone can become an automatic response triggered by waiting, boredom, or an unpleasant emotion.
In both cases, part of the behavior may end up being triggered even before a truly conscious decision has been made.
Are teenagers really at risk of problematic use?
We should avoid letting any use of social media turn into an addiction.
A teenager who regularly communicates with friends on a social media platform isn’t necessarily in trouble.
The World Health Organization distinguishes, in particular, between “intensive use” and ” problematic use,” which is characterized by difficulty controlling one’s behavior and by negative consequences.
According to European data from the 2021–2022 HBSC survey, approximately 11% of adolescents showed signs of problematic social media use. This proportion was 7% in the previous survey in 2018.
The WHO emphasizes, however, that digital technology is not solely associated with risks.
Networks can also foster social relationships and provide spaces for support or self-expression.
The question, then, is not whether social media should be eliminated from teenagers’ lives, but rather how to reduce usage that is becoming difficult to control.
Can a hard-hitting message eventually lose its effectiveness?
This is one of the limitations of any prevention strategy based on warnings.
When you see the same message hundreds of times, you may end up ignoring it.
The pack of cigarettes remains on the table despite the photo. The warning window closes automatically. The notification asking to take a break is swiped away with a finger.
Experts sometimes refer to “habituation to the message.”
This means that the real challenge is probably not just about making the warnings more dramatic.
We also need to consider their content, frequency, and timing.
A message that simply says, “Social media is dangerous,” for example, may be too general.
A context-specific warning might be more helpful:
- remind the user of the elapsed time when usage becomes particularly prolonged;
- explain the possible effects of nighttime use on sleep;
- propose a concrete action rather than a simple ban;
- refer the user to a resource when the user feels they are losing control.
That is precisely one of the interesting findings of the Stanford study: the specific wording of the warning matters.
Preventing without making someone feel guilty
Prevention is ineffective when it makes the person feel guilty.
This applies to screen time as well as to substance addictions.
Telling a teenager, “You’re addicted to your phone,” can immediately trigger a defensive reaction.
Telling a smoker, “You know very well that you’re going to make yourself sick,” rarely provides any information that the smoker doesn’t already know.
A more helpful approach is to provide tools that enable people to gradually regain control.
When it comes to digital devices, this can involve going without a phone for periods of time, turning off certain notifications, keeping your smartphone out of the bedroom, or disabling features designed to encourage repeated use.
When it comes to tobacco, the principle is similar: identifying situations that automatically trigger cravings allows you to prepare alternative responses.
Prevention then becomes less of a moral issue and much more practical.
Social Media and Cigarettes: When These Two Worlds Collide
In fact, there is another connection between these topics: social media today provides a space where young people are exposed to a great deal of content related to nicotine.
E-cigarettes, nicotine products, consumption behaviors, influencers, and humorous content can all contribute to a form of normalization.
The issue is all the more complex because traditional advertising is no longer always easily recognizable.
A product may appear in a video, be used by a content creator, or be part of a trend without taking the traditional form of an advertisement.
Tobacco prevention efforts among young people must therefore now take this digital environment into account.
Cigarette packs are no longer the only place where public health messages are conveyed.
Providing information is essential, and offering support is just as important
Experience with tobacco also highlights another limitation of preventive messaging: once an addiction has taken hold, information alone is often no longer enough.
A person may be fully aware of the dangers of smoking and still need help to quit.
Recognized methods include, in particular, support from a doctor or a smoking cessation specialist, nicotine replacement therapies, and certain behavioral approaches.
Other people are also turning to complementary methods. MyLaserTabac, for example, offers support through laser-based smoking cessation therapy based on the stimulation of specific areas of the ear using low-intensity laser light.
This approach should be viewed as a complementary measure: results may vary from person to person, and it is not a substitute for medical treatment or care when these are necessary.
The MyLaserTabac network is currently establishing centers in several regions of France and is also training practitioners to support people who wish to change certain behaviors related to smoking and other addictions.
Ultimately, this logic ties back to the topic of social media: it is preferable to prevent problematic behavior before it arises, but knowing how to support those who are already experiencing difficulties remains essential.
Should parents become phone police?
Probably not.
Constant supervision may simply shift the problem without teaching the young person to regulate his or her own behavior.
A teenager may stick to a limit only when his phone is taken away, but will fall right back into the same habits as soon as he’s on his own.
The role of adults is more to provide a clear framework.
Why should we avoid using our phones at night? Why are some notifications so hard to ignore? Why does watching one video immediately lead to watching another?
Understanding these mechanisms helps us move beyond a fruitless dichotomy between “reasonable” adults and “screen-addicted” teenagers.
Adults themselves aren’t always role models, either.
It’s hard to explain to a teenager that he or she should put away their phone during meals when a parent checks their email every three minutes.
Can public health messages really change people’s habits?
The new Stanford study offers a promising lead, but not yet a definitive answer.
It shows that a well-designed health warning can increase the perception of risk and reduce the reported desire to use social media among adolescents and young adults.
The question now is what happens when these messages are put into practice in the real world.
Will they still be noticed after six months?
Will they actually help reduce usage time?
Will they have the same effects depending on age, platform, and level of use?
These questions still require data.
In any case, the experience with tobacco shows that an effective policy rarely relies on a single measure.
Warnings, regulations, education, the social environment, and support for people in need must all work together.
Conclusion: The real challenge is to make the risk visible without obscuring the message.
Social media is now a part of young people’s daily lives. It is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable to imagine it disappearing completely.
The question is rather how to enable teenagers to enjoy the benefits of these devices without gradually losing control over their use.
Health warnings could be one such tool.
The study, published in September 2026, suggests that messages that directly address mental health, anxiety, or depression are taken more seriously than a simple reminder to take a break.
The history of tobacco prevention, however, offers an important lesson: a warning can raise awareness, but it is not always enough to bring about lasting behavioral change.
Prevention is truly effective when it does more than just say, “Be careful.”
It must also explain why this is the case, propose solutions, and help those who need it find assistance.
