Wow. I both respect this post, while being annoyed at its direction. It is very respectful in the intro, by explicitly not trying to be attacks against the critics. However, it then is entreating the readers to pick a side for most of the rest.
I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data. Odds are high that both sides have some points that are worth picking up, such that picking a side is almost certainly shutting you out of some good ideas.
My personal push would be to say that claiming mental health became a problem in 2010s is absurd. It has long been a problem, as evidenced by such easy examples as Columbine. Before that, it was likely a largely local problem. In that you didn't hear about the kids that were having trouble, but they were there.
Does this contradict the assertions of the troubles of social media? I don't think so. Just don't think you have shielded your kids from all modern sources of mental ill by simply keeping them away from social media.
This is like thinking that drinking coffee or wine is de facto healthy for you. Likely, the health benefits are as much on what you were not drinking instead. Such that, keeping kids from social media by keeping them engaged with others around them is likely a net positive. By how much of that is keeping them engaged in a participatory way, versus keeping them apart? Such that, if you can get them engaging with things in a healthy way, you can make everyone in that area healthier. You can see this with online groups that are healthy. Yes, there will be some level of banning, as we all have capacities. But the healthy crowds engage. They don't just shout down. Even when they have to deal with people shouting, attempts are made to moderate.