Well, clearly the above could be answered in a single word, with one syllable and two letters, but hey, let's give it a chance. A strange amount of tarnish has fallen from the pens of certain newspapers on "social networking websites". Often the example they use is Facebook, presumably because it's the biggest, baddest and all, with a population of considerably more than quite some countries using it.

There seem to be a couple of main stories, both of which could be plot-lines for a horror film.

First, apparently these websites "harm children's brains", to quote the Daily Mail headline, within which they even managed to fit one of their favourite descriptive words - "chilling". Ooh. Spooky. To make it clear though, even somewhat more respectable news sources managed to carry the news.

Lady Susan Greenfield, a "top" neuroscientist and professor of synaptic pharmacology, had this to say:

[Websites like Facebook are] ....devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilised, characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity

She went on to plant possible links between these activities, autism and ADHD - although what the papers tended to not bother to highlight was that she herself (even though she has come up with some fairly barmy claims in the past if the Poorhouse recalls correctly) even disclaims these connections as something to think about and idle mental meanderings rather than pure fact. So, please do your best to make sure this is how they are reported!

Also, note that she is mostly discussing the increase in "screentime" in general. There's nothing peculiar about www.facebook.com that is going to take a hammer to your brain and smash it into infantile pieces - but rather her concerns appear to lie more in the lack of face-to-face human contact (question: does a webcam count?) and the fact that there is little to no long-term thought that needs to go into most screen based activities. Her examples are fair enough - the Internet/TV delivers entertainment at little effort to yourself, often requiring little brain power (except online Scrabble), and most things are both instant to occur and repeatable should they go wrong; two aspects that "real-life" events sometimes are not.

What we do not have is any huge evidence bank that this is problematic - especially if balanced and/or acting as an enhancement to non-screen life. But you just watch Daily Mailed parents rip their kiddies away from however much social contact they are exercising via teh intertubes and shove them in front of Teletubbies for 8 hrs a day, to rescue their brains from infantilisation...

Next up we have some juicy items from Dr Aric Sigman. You can see him appear on Newsnight below, but in summary, his written work entitled "Well Connected?: The Biological Implications of 'Social Networking" is where the headlines about "Facebook gives you cancer" are originating from. Does the Poorhouse exaggerate? Never! Here's an example from our favourite bastion of untruth: "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer".

And no, for anyone wondering, it's not a sideways link to the fact that there are those that believe that having mobile phones near you for too long gives you cancer, and there has been a recent (and seemingly quite successful, on the Poorhouse's extremely unrepresentative and small sample) effort to get us all status-checking and poking on our radioactive handsets. Rather, the use of Facebook and its ilk alone directly cause damage to our genes, our immune responses, hormones, arteries and mind (link stolen from Kat, ta).

The theory appears to be something like:

1) Lack of social interaction is associated by some studies to many harmful things, including for instance a reduced amount of "TNF-Alpha", a chemical associated with cancer tumour regression, or frequency of having a stroke.
2) People spend the time that they would have spent with their friends faffing around on Facebook
3) Therefore they become lonely, and subject to the risks in 1)

The paper itself, whilst not by any means a paragon of unbiased evidence review, nonetheless never mentions Facebook per se - to the point that the author's website itself now carries a disclaimer that:

This paper has been misrepresented by many news reports as claiming that social networking causes cancer or disease. This is not true.

So yes, the reporting was was yet another Daily Mail-esque lie. To read the actual paper - which to be fair will probably still scare you - download the whole copy here.

There is one huge unproven assumption here though that this all rests upon, surely - that social networking makes people lonelier than they would otherwise have been?

The actual paper itself does not prevent an accurate assessment of all the evidence according to many, including the wunderkind-of-the-anti-bullshitter Ben Goldacre of badscience.net.

One of Ben's main criticisms of the Well-Connected paper is an extreme of cherry-picking the evidence. Despite neophyte's impressions, in science - especially anything involving humans - there is very, very often no black and white. Thus a reviewer should examine all sides of evidence on an issue before coming to their own opinion, and those presenting evidence should unsure their point is made without resorting to a bias akin to a "lie by ommission".

In just one 2-second journal search, Goldacre found several papers that did not warrant a mention in Sigman's study of death and despair. Funnily enough, they tend to carry a conclusion that his thesis is not true, particularly the assumption that being online a lot - especially in this day and age of social networking (the clue is in the title kiddies) - makes you lonely, let alone in a causative manner.

Probably worse yet, in the case of a paper called "The Internet Paradox", it seems Sigman was happy enough to use the weak evidence that suggested of a link between Internet usage and loneliness and associated depression etc - bear in mind this was in 1998, 6 years before Facebook even existed and well before social networking in the online sense we mean these days was a twinkle in the eyes of the general population, from that - but not from the follow-up study that showed it no longer existed. Hmmm.

And Ben is not the only one to see there is some evidence of social networking bringing not only death and destruction, but also wholesome good things to the table - and not only from the young 'n' trendies. Check this, from Age Concern, a charity promoting the interests and welfare of elderly people:

Our research shows that over two thirds of ‘silver surfers’ say using the Internet has improved their lives. Whether it’s using Facebook to stay in contact with friends‚ Skype for international calls to family abroad or using blogs to just have their say‚ social networking empowers previously isolated older people to stay connected and engaged

Whatwhatwhat!? Websites that are designed to help connect people together may actually reduce loneliness? Shocks!

"I encourage any older people who are feeling isolated or lonely to try social networking" says Doreen, a woman with a classically aged name (...in the Poorhouse's limited cultural experience).

But "think of the children!" the Poorhouse hears you think (?). Well, it might be OK for them too actually, according to a recent study entitled the "Digital Youth Project".

As reported in the Washington Times

...we found that spending time online is essential for young people to pick up the social and technical skills they need to be competent citizens in the digital age...technology, including YouTube, iPods and podcasting, creates avenues for extending one's circle of friends, boosts self-directed learning and fosters independence...Social networking also contributes greatly to teens' extended friendships and interests

Yes, of course the Poorhouse is pulling a Sigman here and selectively quoting the good things about these technologies. This is mainly because he does not know whether the effects of online social networking are all awesomely good (unlikely), terrifyingly bad (ditto) or have possibilities to be both good and bad (almost certain). Luckily the Poorhouse doesn't bill himself as a science expert informing the nation that clicking on a link to Facebook will give them cancer. He will go out on a limb and claim that going on Facebook is no worse than watching TV instead.

(Granted the Poorhouse does know for a fact that the advent of these sites lowers his work productivity, but that's just a personal character flaw involving a near physical need of constantly using one hand to hit refresh on the Facebook browser every 3 seconds - maybe it's a part-cause of the economic decline of the world...?)