Teenage boys show major declines in suicide across the globe as their social media use grew
83% of countries with reliable reporting show plunging suicide rates by teenage boys as social media proliferated. Does social media actually prevent suicide?
The trend is amazing – and completely destroys the myths of rising teen self-destruction that are flooding major media and political forms.
Teenaged boys show plummeting suicide rates in country after country, from Korea and Australia to France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Canada, and Chile.
An astounding 34 of 41 countries that provide reasonably complete mortality numbers over the last 30 years showed suicide declines for boys age 15-19; 36 of 41 for boys ages 10-14.
This is a huge deal. Boys account for 60% to 80% of teen suicides, depending on the country. The plunge in boys’ suicides is even more impressive than the stunning suicide decline among teenage girls in two-thirds of the countries investigated.
The official response has been disgraceful demagoguery. The massive decline in suicides by teens seems horrifying to authorities bent on blaming social media for teen distress who are trumpeting the exact opposite.
The most that arch-advocates of banning teens from social media like Jonathan Haidt, Zach Rausch, and Jean Twenge can bring themselves to confess from their own biased analyses: “not much happens for the male suicide rate among adolescents.”
“Not much”? The trend isn’t subtle. Blind mice could see it (Table 1).
· 4 countries show increased suicide in the 1995-2023 period for both younger and older teen boys: the United States, Japan, Mexico, and Argentina.
· 33 countries led by France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Korea, Russia, Canada, Australia, Poland, Romania, Chile, etc., show decreased suicide rates for boys during that period.
· 4 nations variously show increases or decreases depending on boys’ ages.
Table 1. Suicide trends by teenage boys ages 10-14 and 15-19 by nation, 1995 to 2023
Source: Global Burden of Disease, University of Washington School of Medicine Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2026), Data tool. Suicides are deaths from “self-harm.” Rates are suicides per 100,000 population by country. “Social media era” is 1995 through 2023. Rates and changes are calculated using standard regression that incorporates all 28 years of data into a linear trendline. Trends derived from WHO mortality data are similar. See last substack’s note on method.*
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s massive Youth Risk Behavior surveys confirm that social media may play a role in reducing suicide – though scientific rigor demands more cautious analysis. Causation requires powerful evidence that goes far beyond the weak-effect “correlation-equals-causation” notions (see meta-analyses by psychologist Christopher Ferguson and other statisticians) now touted daily in breathless media reports and political assertions that social media harms young people.
Nevertheless, along with widespread suicide declines as youthful use of social media proliferated, boys report some encouraging personal indications.
Table 2. The more teenage boys use social media, the less likely they are to harm themselves or attempt suicide
Source: CDC, YRBS, 2023; total n=6,812.
These results are similar though less extreme than those found for girls in the previous substack. Self-harm and suicide attempts rise sharply as abuse levels increase, but social media use is associated with lower self-destruction.
As in the previous substack on girls, we have to ask again why authorities are so indifferent and hostile to teenagers’ well-being that they willfully ignore and distort clear evidence – not conclusive proof, but solid evidence – that social media may reduce suicidal behaviors and deaths, or at least provide abused and distressed teens outlets to connect with others who can help.
That both boys’ and girls’ suicide rates have been declining in the large majority of countries that can be assessed is yet another argument for halting and reversing the current official stampede to ban teenagers from social media.




When you look at the data: is it robust enough? Any issues in methodology? Any other gotchas or caveats in what you are focused on?
I find your posts fascinating and much against the grain on all of this. But some of the points make perfect intuitive sense to me.
So if your focus has a robust underpinning, what’s driving the other side on this issue?
Genuine ask! Tell me what’s not obvious.
But surely the better counter argument is that these stats are not consistent across all countries even where social media has been introduced in the same time period?