I'm not conceding any point. I am trying to say that the way the internet works inherently filters information to us based on how emotionally engaging content is. Maybe you aren't exposed to the counter points because they aren't that engaging but there's tons of research being done on men as well. Incels and Japanese Hikikomori, conspiracy theories and online extremism is more male oriented. Also, objectively there's tons of studies of the mental health effects on males online but the consensus seems to be that gaming doesn't have as a negative effect on boys as social media has for women - which a lot of boys screen time revolves around. But boys are also affected by this.

The focus only being on teen girls is objectively false. We literally have no idea what this technology is doing to us, and the research communities are scrambling to figure out the effects of social media and technology on all of us. But these are extremely time consuming and hard things to do conclusive studies on.

I do concede that girls were the first group to be broadly reported though. Probably because that age and gender group is especially vulnerable to the damages caused by social media and signs clearly starting showing up in 2012-2017 in a greater degree than boys of the same age group. Also it doesn't surprise me that a group who is constantly monitored by authority (parents and schools) are the first to be reported on. Males aged 20-60 are more likely to isolate themselves and not reach out creating far greater "dark cases".

My original point is that the internet exaggerates and selectively filters for engagement. If your knowledge on this topic is primarily from online sources optimised for engagement you have an incomplete view on the area. I'm not trying to change your mind on this topic in particular. I'm just saying that the internet inherently exaggerates and removes nuance (and I've felt a bit of that lack of nuance in your comments) and that this affects everyone and every single topic online today. Including me.