Tell your children! Social networking causes brain damage and autism! Increases risk of cancer! Leads to loss of identity! Watch what actually happens when their brains are rewired! See how social networks result in suicide!

Yes, over the weekend more Reefer Madness style moral panic about social networks broke loose. This week’s contender for the Susan Greenfield Award for Utter Nonsense Talked about Social Networks was Archbishop Vincent Nichols, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. He suggested that Facebook and MySpace can lead children to commit suicide. And he’s not alone in making such wild, unfounded claims.

In February, we had Professor Greenfield’s speculation in the Daily Mail that social networking sites harm children’s brains and may lead to autism. Also that month, Dr Aric Sigman stuck his own tabloid oar in, with fears that Facebook may cause cancer.

Both were roundly criticised by Dr Ben Goldacre on Newsnight, who argued that “this is Baroness Greenfield unfortunately abusing her position in order to give extra weight to conjecture and opinion”. Her piece on Newsnight looks less like a contribution to rational scientific debate, and more like a hoodwinked celeb on a Chris Morris show – specifically Neil Fox’s statement on the spoof current affairs series Brass Eye that “there’s no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact“. The Baroness almost delivers that line verbatim.

Now the church is weighing into the debate too, with assumption, speculation, conjecture and fear – but without actual evidence. What’s going on here?

This doesn’t seem much different to any previous technology-based moral panic, whether about television, cars or the telephone. Technology itself is neutral – nuclear fission may be used to create bombs or energy. The impact technology has on society is a complex, fascinating topic – and one worthy of research rather than tabloid speculation.

When public figures  make alarmist pronouncements on social media they neither understand nor use, they contribute little to public understanding. It’s fashionable in some quarters to rejoice in one’s own bewilderment about social media. Radio 4 is my favourite organ of ignorance in the UK, from arched-eyebrowed interviews  on the Today programme that just stop short of including the word ‘new-fangled’, to Will Self on Any Questions saying “the only way I would twitter is if a songbird flew into my mouth” – to squeals of delight from the audience, one of whom ‘admitted’ to using Twitter. But when such ignorance becomes judgemental warning, there’s something wrong.

Social networking sites are neither a Good Thing nor a Bad Thing. They’re just a thing, a tool, another way to communicate, publish and share information. With 200 million users on Facebook, an exploding Twitter population of 45 million, and more and more of our time spent online, they appear here to stay. Yes, there is bullying, spam and porn. There is also online support, fundraising, and philanthropy. Just like the Internet. Just like real life.

Social media isn’t for everyone – and using it depends on your attitude to openness, transparency and risk. But if you have something to say, information to share, a cause to raise awareness of, or even something to sell – it’s worth a look. You won’t get cancer, go mad or kill yourself. Really – don’t have nightmares.

See also:

• Bad Science: “Facebook causes cancer” Ben Goldacre’s blog, complete with references to actual research, 24 Feb 09
• Is Facebook damaging your brain? (video) Guardian interview with Susan Greenfield, 25 Feb 09