Làm thử Đề thi thử tốt nghiệp THPT · Tiếng Anh · Đề 096

This September, the Riverside Short Film Festival returns for (1) ____ fourth year, showcasing new work from young directors across the region. Tickets can be booked (2) ____ the festival website from next Monday. Entries this year include comedies, documentaries, and animated shorts, (3) ____ have been selected from more than two hundred submissions. The festival is especially popular (4) ____ students studying film and media. Anyone (5) ____ would like to volunteer at the box office should email the organisers directly. Seats are limited, so early booking is strongly (6) ____.

This September, the Riverside Short Film Festival returns for (1) ____ fourth year, showcasing new work from young directors across the region. Tickets can be booked (2) ____ the festival website from next Monday. Entries this year include comedies, documentaries, and animated shorts, (3) ____ have been selected from more than two hundred submissions. The festival is especially popular (4) ____ students studying film and media. Anyone (5) ____ would like to volunteer at the box office should email the organisers directly. Seats are limited, so early booking is strongly (6) ____.

This September, the Riverside Short Film Festival returns for (1) ____ fourth year, showcasing new work from young directors across the region. Tickets can be booked (2) ____ the festival website from next Monday. Entries this year include comedies, documentaries, and animated shorts, (3) ____ have been selected from more than two hundred submissions. The festival is especially popular (4) ____ students studying film and media. Anyone (5) ____ would like to volunteer at the box office should email the organisers directly. Seats are limited, so early booking is strongly (6) ____.

This September, the Riverside Short Film Festival returns for (1) ____ fourth year, showcasing new work from young directors across the region. Tickets can be booked (2) ____ the festival website from next Monday. Entries this year include comedies, documentaries, and animated shorts, (3) ____ have been selected from more than two hundred submissions. The festival is especially popular (4) ____ students studying film and media. Anyone (5) ____ would like to volunteer at the box office should email the organisers directly. Seats are limited, so early booking is strongly (6) ____.

This September, the Riverside Short Film Festival returns for (1) ____ fourth year, showcasing new work from young directors across the region. Tickets can be booked (2) ____ the festival website from next Monday. Entries this year include comedies, documentaries, and animated shorts, (3) ____ have been selected from more than two hundred submissions. The festival is especially popular (4) ____ students studying film and media. Anyone (5) ____ would like to volunteer at the box office should email the organisers directly. Seats are limited, so early booking is strongly (6) ____.

This September, the Riverside Short Film Festival returns for (1) ____ fourth year, showcasing new work from young directors across the region. Tickets can be booked (2) ____ the festival website from next Monday. Entries this year include comedies, documentaries, and animated shorts, (3) ____ have been selected from more than two hundred submissions. The festival is especially popular (4) ____ students studying film and media. Anyone (5) ____ would like to volunteer at the box office should email the organisers directly. Seats are limited, so early booking is strongly (6) ____.

Say goodbye to single-use plastic with the new Hydra bottle, made (7) ____ recycled stainless steel. The double-walled design keeps drinks cold for up to twenty-four hours, (8) ____ makes it perfect for long journeys. Every bottle comes with (9) ____ leak-proof lid and a lifetime guarantee. Customers (10) ____ register their bottle online will receive a free cleaning brush. Orders placed before Friday can be (11) ____ up from any branch this weekend. Choose Hydra today, and help cut (12) ____ single-use plastic for good.

Say goodbye to single-use plastic with the new Hydra bottle, made (7) ____ recycled stainless steel. The double-walled design keeps drinks cold for up to twenty-four hours, (8) ____ makes it perfect for long journeys. Every bottle comes with (9) ____ leak-proof lid and a lifetime guarantee. Customers (10) ____ register their bottle online will receive a free cleaning brush. Orders placed before Friday can be (11) ____ up from any branch this weekend. Choose Hydra today, and help cut (12) ____ single-use plastic for good.

Say goodbye to single-use plastic with the new Hydra bottle, made (7) ____ recycled stainless steel. The double-walled design keeps drinks cold for up to twenty-four hours, (8) ____ makes it perfect for long journeys. Every bottle comes with (9) ____ leak-proof lid and a lifetime guarantee. Customers (10) ____ register their bottle online will receive a free cleaning brush. Orders placed before Friday can be (11) ____ up from any branch this weekend. Choose Hydra today, and help cut (12) ____ single-use plastic for good.

Say goodbye to single-use plastic with the new Hydra bottle, made (7) ____ recycled stainless steel. The double-walled design keeps drinks cold for up to twenty-four hours, (8) ____ makes it perfect for long journeys. Every bottle comes with (9) ____ leak-proof lid and a lifetime guarantee. Customers (10) ____ register their bottle online will receive a free cleaning brush. Orders placed before Friday can be (11) ____ up from any branch this weekend. Choose Hydra today, and help cut (12) ____ single-use plastic for good.

Say goodbye to single-use plastic with the new Hydra bottle, made (7) ____ recycled stainless steel. The double-walled design keeps drinks cold for up to twenty-four hours, (8) ____ makes it perfect for long journeys. Every bottle comes with (9) ____ leak-proof lid and a lifetime guarantee. Customers (10) ____ register their bottle online will receive a free cleaning brush. Orders placed before Friday can be (11) ____ up from any branch this weekend. Choose Hydra today, and help cut (12) ____ single-use plastic for good.

Say goodbye to single-use plastic with the new Hydra bottle, made (7) ____ recycled stainless steel. The double-walled design keeps drinks cold for up to twenty-four hours, (8) ____ makes it perfect for long journeys. Every bottle comes with (9) ____ leak-proof lid and a lifetime guarantee. Customers (10) ____ register their bottle online will receive a free cleaning brush. Orders placed before Friday can be (11) ____ up from any branch this weekend. Choose Hydra today, and help cut (12) ____ single-use plastic for good.

Question 16. a. At first, she found it hard to follow conversations at school because everyone spoke so fast.
b. Two years ago, Mai moved from Vietnam to Canada with her family.
c. She now helps other new students settle into their new school.
d. Little by little, she began joining clubs and making friends from different backgrounds.
e. These friendships helped her feel more confident about speaking English every day.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Walk into a growing number of classrooms today and you might notice something new next to the whiteboard: a tablet running software that behaves a little like a patient private tutor. These programmes, often called AI tutors, watch how a student answers questions and quietly adjust the next question to match what that student seems ready for. Teachers who have used them describe the experience as having a quiet assistant who never gets tired of explaining the same fraction problem five different ways.

The appeal is easy to understand. In a class of thirty, a teacher simply cannot sit beside every student who is stuck on the same tricky step, but software can. Because each student's mistakes are logged automatically, weaknesses that might otherwise stay hidden until an exam are spotted within days rather than months. Some schools report that struggling students catch up noticeably faster once an AI tutor identifies exactly which skill, rather than which subject, needs more practice.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Critics worry that constant monitoring could be used inappropriately, and some parents ask uncomfortable questions about how long student data should be stored, and by whom. There is also a quieter concern: a program can flag that a student got a question wrong, but it cannot always tell why, and understanding why a ten-year-old is confused often requires the kind of patience and imagination that only a human teacher can offer.

For now, most educators agree that AI tutors work best as a supplement rather than a replacement. The technology can free up a teacher's time by handling repetitive practice, leaving the teacher free to focus on the messier, more human parts of learning: encouraging a nervous student, explaining a joke that fell flat, or simply noticing that someone has had a difficult morning. Whether AI tutors eventually reshape the classroom completely or quietly fade into just one more tool on the shelf, most people agree that the technology is here to stay in some form.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.

Before smartphones existed, the idea of checking in with hundreds of acquaintances every day would have sounded exhausting to most people, yet that is roughly what a typical social media user now does without a second thought. Social networking sites first became widely popular in the mid-2000s, promising an easy way to stay in touch with friends who had moved away. Rarely did anyone predict, at that early stage, just how much daily mental effort scrolling through a constant stream of updates would eventually demand.

Researchers use the term 'mental load' to describe the quiet effort involved in constantly managing information, decisions and relationships, and social media adds several layers to that load. [I] Every notification, however small, asks the brain to stop what it is doing and decide whether the message deserves attention. [II] Beyond individual notifications, users also process a steady stream of other people's opinions, achievements and photographs, each one inviting a small, often unconscious comparison. [III] Keeping track of who has replied to what, and in which conversation, adds a further layer of mental bookkeeping that earlier generations never had to manage. [IV] None of these tasks feels demanding in isolation, which is exactly why their combined weight is so easy to underestimate.

This hidden cost of social media has been linked to a range of effects. Studies from the early 2010s onward have repeatedly found that heavy users report higher levels of stress and lower sleep quality than light users, even after accounting for how much time they spend online overall. It was not screen time alone, researchers eventually concluded, but the sheer number of small decisions and comparisons packed into that time that best predicted how drained a user felt afterwards. Younger users, who often manage several platforms and group chats at once, tend to report this fatigue most strongly.

In response, some platforms have begun offering tools that group notifications together or hide follower counts, changes intended to reduce the number of small decisions a user must make each day. Digital wellbeing experts also recommend simple habits, such as switching off notifications during work hours or reviewing only a handful of accounts at a set time each day. These small design and behaviour changes cannot eliminate the mental load of social media entirely, but they can noticeably lighten it for users willing to adopt them. Whether major platforms will ever be required by regulators to build such tools into their default settings remains an open question.