How we connect online can matter as much as how often we connect. A Canadian study covered this week offers a useful reminder: among adults aged 55 and over, social-network use was associated with poorer self-rated mental health, while email use was associated with better self-rated mental health. That does not prove that one tool causes either outcome. Still, it invites a more useful question than “Should we be online less?”: what kind of interaction are we choosing when we are online?

What the new research does—and does not—tell us

A study published in PLOS Global Public Health analyzed 2022 Canadian Internet Use Survey data from 13,536 adults aged 55 and older. Researchers compared several kinds of digital communication, including email, messaging apps, social-networking sites, video calls, dating sites, and uploading content. justing for demographic factors, the researchers found different associations for different tools. Email was positively associated with perceived mental health; social networking was negatively associated; and instant messaging and voice or video calls showed no statistically significant association in this analysis. The important point is not that email is “good” and social media is “bad.” It is that being online is not one single behaviour.

The authors are appropriately careful. This was a cross-sectional study, so it cannot establish cause and effect. It also did not measure frequency, duration, whether people were actively participating or passively scrolling, or the quality of individual interactions. The research is not a verdict on social media, nor is it a reason to treat email as a wellness product. It is a prompt to look beyond screen time and toward purpose, pace, and reciprocity. tinction matters as more people rely on digital tools to stay in touch. Statistics Canada reported that email was the most common online communication activity among Canadians 65 and older in 2022, ahead of messaging apps and social-networking sites. Familiarity, though, does not make every interaction equally meaningful. tion and appreciation are not the same thing

A feed can create the feeling of being around people without asking much of us. It offers updates, reactions, and endless opportunities to be seen. That can be useful, fun, and genuinely connective. But attention is often broad and fast: a view, a like, a quick response between other tasks.

Appreciation works differently. It is specific. It says, “I noticed what you did,” “I remember what matters to you,” or “Your effort made a difference.” It does not need an audience, a streak, or a public metric.

This is why a brief, considered message can carry more weight than a busy comment section. Its value is not in length or polish. It is in the evidence that someone paused, paid attention, and chose their words.

Loovity is built around that kind of pause. With only five Loovs per day, the idea is not to make recognition scarce for its own sake. It is to make room for choice: whom do you want to acknowledge today, and what exactly are you grateful they brought into your life?

A practical takeaway: make one interaction more specific

The next time you open a social app, try replacing one passive action with a deliberate one:

• Choose one person rather than a general audience.

• Name one real detail: an effort, a quality, a moment, or an effect.

• Send it without asking for anything back.

For example: “I keep thinking about how calmly you handled that hard conversation. It made the room feel safer.” It is small, but it is not empty.

This will not turn every digital interaction into a close relationship, and it does not need to. The point is to use the tools we already have with a little more intention. Before the next scroll, consider giving one person something more valuable than attention: clear, genuine appreciation.