In 2023, forty-one states and Washington, D.C., filed a joint lawsuit against Meta for harming young people’s mental health by deliberately building addictive features into Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuit cites Meta’s own research, leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen, that the company knew about the harm Instagram can cause teenagers (especially teen girls) when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5 percent of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17 percent of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse. Despite being caught red-handed, Meta isn’t giving an inch.
The industry marshals an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and publicists to drown out critics, bat down legal claims, and quash reforms. It’s the same playbook the tobacco industry used for decades, despite knowing that smoking causes cancer. When the Federal Trade Commission determined in 2023 that Meta had “repeatedly violated its privacy promises,” misled parents about protections in its Messenger Kids app, and “put young users at risk,” the company responded not with remorse or a commitment to fix the problems. It dismissed the whole thing as a “political stunt.”
In part because of the millions of dollars spent by tech companies to battle regulation, Congress has so far been unable or unwilling to pass meaningful legislation to protect kids online. States are stepping up to fill the gap, but they, too, are being pummeled by industry muscle. In 2022, California became the first state to pass a law to safeguard child privacy on social media. It would have required tech companies to limit data collected from kids under the age of eighteen, assess the ages of users to prevent adult strangers from contacting young people, and put other privacy protections in place. But in 2023, a tech trade association representing Google, Meta, Amazon, X, and TikTok sued California to block the law from taking effect, saying it violated the First Amendment. A federal judge agreed, and California is now appealing the ruling. When Utah adopted a parental consent law to protect children under eighteen on social media platforms and banned addictive features and data mining of minors, tech industry lobbyists decried that law as unconstitutional as well.
So long as social media platforms are raking in billions of dollars in ads aimed at revenue from kids, this is likely to continue. A Facebook employee’s 2018 email tried to quantify future profits the company could expect from a young user: “The lifetime value of a 13 y/o teen is roughly $270 per teen.” At a January 2024 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Big Tech and the child exploitation crisis, members of Design It for Us, a youth-led coalition advocating for safer social media and online platforms for teens, wore T-shirts that read WE’RE WORTH MORE THAN $270.
Some of Big Tech’s most prominent defenders dress up their defense of obscene profits in high-minded, pseudo-intellectual manifestos. They call themselves “techno-optimists” and think the “Great Men” of history—inventors and investors like Zuckerberg and Elon Musk—should not be held back by the petty concerns of regular people or by pesky rules and regulations. The venture capitalist Marc Andreessen published a long list of “enemies,” which included academics, environmentalists, ethicists, and corporate “trust and safety” teams that try to remove harmful content from social media platforms. Most of all, Andreessen and his allies hate the idea that government might try to regulate technology and protect users. They say it will destroy innovation, sap American dynamism, and empower rivals like China. They say we have no choice but to let technology run wild and live with the consequences.
Shake off the Silicon Valley technobabble and this is no different from what every plutocrat has said since the beginning of time. Every commonsense limit on the power of Big Business is derided as communism. Every consumer protection is attacked and undermined. You don’t want children laboring in our factory or digging coal in our mine? You must hate capitalism and freedom. Stop marketing cigarettes to kids? This isn’t Soviet Russia! We can’t dump toxic chemicals into the air and water? This will destroy the economy.
Give me a break. The advance of technology is not an unalloyed good. It’s a tool that can help or harm society depending on how we use it. Steel can be used to build bridges or tanks. Nuclear power can light up a city or destroy it. Social networks that can mobilize protests against dictators and make LGBTQ+ kids feel less alone can also fuel an epidemic of anxiety and incite violence like we saw on January 6, 2021.
Regulators don’t always get it right, but we have a long and successful history of taming the worst aspects of technology so it works more for us than against us. Think about seat belts and speed limits. They didn’t destroy the auto industry. They just made it safer for Americans to drive. We need to do the same thing for social media.
The first step is to better understand the data these giant companies are collecting on our kids. Many parents would be stunned by the sheer volume of it. As the Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Romer puts it, “These firms know more about citizens of the world’s democracies than the Stasi knew about East Germans.” We also need to understand how that data is used to inform recommendation algorithms and design features that promote addiction. Independent researchers need access to black box algorithms so we know what we’re dealing with and can figure out how to regulate it effectively.
Second, it’s time to rein in surveillance advertising, through either a ban or a tax on targeted digital ads, as Romer has proposed. So long as it’s highly profitable for social media platforms to target ads at kids, they’ll keep doing it.
Third, we have to update our laws governing the internet and reform or repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which gave tech companies immunity from being held accountable for the material posted on their platforms. Europe has already passed new laws to protect privacy and require consent for using personal data. As I was finishing this book, Dr. Murthy published another op-ed calling for warning labels on social media platforms, stating that they are associated with significant mental health harm for adolescents. “A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe,” he wrote. Evidence from tobacco studies show that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior. Doing the same for social media would be a helpful start.
I’m glad that Congress has finally taken on TikTok, passing a law requiring the Chinese app be sold or shut down. Allowing an app controlled by the CCP to hoover up Americans’ personal data and shape the content our young people consume is a clear national security risk. This isn’t a question of limiting free speech—there are plenty of other platforms where Americans can post videos of themselves dancing or expressing any opinion they want—it’s a matter of limiting the influence of a foreign power. Former TikTok employees have reported that Beijing exercises much more control and has access to much more data than TikTok would have us believe. If you want to see for yourself how the CCP is influencing what our kids are consuming, try searching TikTok for videos about the repression of China’s Uyghurs. See how many videos you can find about the crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Compare that with what turns up in the flood of content (some of it anti-Semitic disinformation) targeting Israel or Ukraine or attacking Joe Biden. That’s no accident. There’s no way we’d allow Vladimir Putin to control Facebook or let Kim Jong Un buy YouTube. Allowing Xi Jinping and the CCP to keep their hands on TikTok is just as crazy.
Beyond TikTok, though, I’m realistic about the chances of sweeping legislation addressing our broader challenges with technology and social media. Waiting for Congress can be like waiting for Godot. And waiting. And waiting. But there’s a lot that families, schools, and communities can do to protect our kids while we push for national reforms.
In my experience, to make progress on complex social problems you need the three-legged stool: responsive governments, responsible business leaders, and active civil society. You need grassroots movements of parents, teachers, civic organizations, faith leaders, activists, and advocates all working together. That’s how we dramatically reduced the rate of teen pregnancy in America, which Bill called “our most serious social problem” in his 1995 State of the Union address. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (now Power to Decide) brought together Democrats and Republicans, groups like Planned Parenthood worked alongside Catholic Charities, and parents led the way. Most of all, we started listening to teenagers—really listening—and designing programs to address their needs and lift up their hopes. As a result, teen pregnancy fell to an all-time low, and millions of women and girls had the chance to get an education, pursue a career, follow their dreams, and start a family when they were ready.
How can we drive similar change today? In his book The Anxious Generation, Haidt offers these four simple suggestions for parents and schools grappling with how to manage technology and support kids: No smartphones before high school. No social media before age sixteen. No phones in schools. And more independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer that will be right for every family, but these are ideas worth exploring.
Studies show that delaying unlimited internet access until after puberty (the years when social media use is most likely to be correlated with poor mental health) can protect kids from the worst impacts. But some advocates point out that easily circumvented age restrictions may be less effective than requiring tech companies to design products so they’re safer for children. Groups like Accountable Tech and Common Sense Media have specific ideas for how to do that, and several states are considering legislation. They say that instead of fighting a losing battle to keep kids off the internet, we should focus on protecting them on the internet. These are the right debates to be having.
When kids do go online, parents, caregivers, and schools must teach them the skills they need to safely navigate their digital lives. Families should think about setting ground rules for using smartphones, laptops, and video game consoles to prevent overuse. Parents should also talk candidly about the realities of mental health challenges and the dangers of unmitigated use of devices and social media. Organizations like Thumbs Down. Speak Up. and the Jed Foundation have tool kits and resources to start important conversations.
Unsurprisingly, students who text or use social media during class tend to learn less and get worse grades. According to UCLA researchers, sixth graders who went five days without glancing at a smartphone, television, or other digital screen did substantially better at reading human emotions than sixth graders from the same school who continued to spend hours each day looking at their electronic devices.
Thankfully, many schools are already testing out screen bans and using lockable phone pouches from companies like Yondr. Take Illing Middle School in Connecticut, for example. After deploying phone pouches, students focused and engaged more in class, but there were other positive side effects, too. Social media–fueled fights ended, group vaping sessions decreased, and more friendships were made. Where once the lunchroom was filled with kids silently hunched over their screens, the room was now filled with the hum of genuine conversation. One study across four hundred schools found that phone bans decreased bullying incidents by 43 percent. Girls’ visits to the doctor because of mental health challenges dropped by 29 percent. And GPAs rose—most especially for girls in lower-income families. These are all signs of successful policymaking in my book, and more schools and districts should take notice. Some already are. In June 2024, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s board of education voted to ban cell phones and social media during the school day starting in 2025, and are considering using cell phone pouches and designated lockers.
I’m encouraged by signs that many young people are looking for healthier ways to use technology more responsibly, too. For example, more people are buying old-fashioned flip phones. Trendy “dumb phone” companies are selling out models that encourage users to spend less time on their devices. And “Luddite clubs” that promote socialization without social media or technology are popping up in schools across the country.
It’s also important to consider what screen time is replacing. Convincing young people to step away from their phones is about offering better alternatives—like exercise, socializing in person with friends, and spending time outdoors. There is so much that digital natives can teach older generations about how to master new technology, but there is also a lot we can share, too. We have only so much time left in which generations that lived a majority of their lives without the internet can share firsthand wisdom with people who have never lived a day without it. This is a moment when we shouldn’t discount the value of a kind of intergenerational diplomacy for the oldest generations and youngest generations to learn from each other.
Dr. Murthy told me he thinks about this a lot. “It’s just as important for our kids to learn how to understand their emotions, how to build healthy relationships, how to manage conflict, how to have real conversations, especially when we disagree, but do so respectfully,” he said. “It’s just as important for them to build those skills, I believe, as it is for them to learn how to read and to write and to learn about history and economics.”
He argues that we can all do more in our own lives to nurture relationships with friends, family members, and neighbors and seek out opportunities to serve and support others. On a tour of college campuses, he proposed what he called the 5-for-5 Connection Challenge. He asked his audiences to take one action a day for five days that gives them the experience of connection. “You can either express gratitude to someone, you can extend support to someone, or you can ask for help,” he explained. It’s simple, but the result is meaningful. “There are all of these rays of hope that have just gone out into the world. People are going to receive those messages…. They’re going to feel appreciated. They’re going to feel connected. And it’s going to feel good to know that you helped create that feeling.”
I want my grandkids and future generations to know that there is so much more to life than social media and screens. In a moment like this, I’m reminded of the words of Annie Dillard: “How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives.” We were made for so much more than screens. We shouldn’t lose sight of that, and we should remind our kids of that every chance we get.
PUTIN’S REPUBLICAN PARTY
On the evening of May 26, 1940, Americans gathered around radios in living rooms and kitchens all over the country to listen to one of President Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats. War was raging in Europe, and it was going badly.
“Tonight over the once peaceful roads of Belgium and France millions are now moving, running from their homes to escape bombs and shells and fire and machine gunning, without shelter, and almost wholly without food,” the president said. “They stumble on, knowing not where the end of the road will be.”
This was not yet America’s fight. Pearl Harbor was still more than a year and a half away. But Roosevelt understood that the advance of fascism in Europe threatened America’s security and the future of democracy everywhere. He would not sit idly by while Hitler’s armies swept across the continent and crushed the forces of freedom. That did not yet mean joining the war directly, but he was determined to make the United States the “arsenal of democracy” by sending aid and arms to defend Britain and others fighting the Nazis. But to do that, Roosevelt had to convince the American people to care about a war thousands of miles away. He had to persuade them to turn away from the isolationists in Congress and the media who shouted “America First” and opposed any involvement in the conflict.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because “America First” has once again become a rallying cry on the Right. Donald Trump has proudly adopted the slogan despite—or perhaps because of—its association with fascism. Once again, isolationists in Congress blocked American aid while a murderous dictator made war in Europe. We may not be on the brink of world war, but once again, the future of democracy depends on whether the United States will lead or retreat.
In October 2023, President Biden sent Congress an urgent request to provide weapons and funding to help Ukraine’s fragile democracy fend off Russia’s brutal invasion, along with support for Israel, civilians in Gaza, and Taiwan. Egged on by Trump, Republicans in Congress balked. Month after month, as they refused to even bring this critical aid up for a vote, Ukraine paid the price. The Ukrainian army ran short of ammunition and troops. Russia stepped up its aerial bombardment. Putin’s troops overran the eastern city of Avdiivka and pressed their advantage. Every day that went by, the outgunned and outmanned Ukrainian defense forces wondered how much longer they could survive without American aid. In the Kremlin, Putin crowed that he’d been right all along about the weakness of the West.
Finally, in April, under intense pressure, the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, who at the last minute bucked Trump, approved $60 billion for Ukraine. It was a lifeline for the embattled nation, but the delay caused serious damage, and it remains to be seen whether this belated support will be too little, too late.
How did the party of Reagan become the party of Putin? It’s worth going back to Roosevelt and his fireside chat on that May evening in 1940. Roosevelt explained that the America First isolationists of his era fell into three groups, and his analysis provides a useful primer for understanding what we’re up against today as well.
In 1940, the most dangerous group was comprised of Nazi sympathizers or, worse, “spies, saboteurs and traitors,” who were sowing discord in the country and exploiting “prejudices through false slogans and emotional appeals.” Roosevelt was withering in his criticism of those who spread foreign propaganda and sought to create conflict and political paralysis in the United States. “These dividing forces are undiluted poison,” he said. They were a “Trojan Horse,” a “Fifth Column that betrays a nation unprepared for treachery.” This was not hyperbole. In February 1939, more than twenty thousand American Nazis rallied in Madison Square Garden beneath a giant portrait of George Washington flanked by swastikas. They booed Roosevelt, chanted “Heil Hitler!,” and fantasized about the end of American democracy.
Not all isolationists were Nazi puppets. Some were simply blind partisans “who have deliberately and consciously closed their eyes because they were determined to be opposed to their government.” If Roosevelt was for something, they were knee-jerk against it—even if that meant playing into Hitler’s hands.
Then there was a third category—maybe the largest in number—those who were well-meaning but deeply misguided. They believed sincerely that what happened in Europe was none of America’s concern, that the oceans and a policy of neutrality would protect us. This was a view that stretched back to the nation’s founding and President Washington’s warning about avoiding entangling alliances. But it was dangerously outdated in a world where bombers swept across the skies and submarines stalked the seas. Washington never confronted an enemy as evil as Hitler, nor could he have imagined the power and reach of the Nazi war machine. In a speech on June 10, 1940, Roosevelt derided the “obvious delusion” that the United States could safely be “a lone island in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”
Delusion or no, it was a potent political force. Hundreds of thousands of isolationists signed up with the America First Committee. One of them, the most prominent isolationist of all, was Charles Lindbergh, who had become an American hero and a major celebrity after making the first solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927. Lindbergh was dashing, brave, and a repulsive anti-Semite. In 1936, he visited Germany and palled around with Hermann Göring, Hitler’s demonic number two. On his tour with Göring, Lindbergh oohed and ahhed over Nazi warplanes and arms factories. He extolled the “genius” of Nazi Germany and the “great intelligence” of its policies. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda chief, could hardly have scripted it better himself. Two years later, on another visit, Göring presented Lindbergh with one of the Third Reich’s highest honors, the Service Cross of the Order of the German Eagle. Lindbergh wore the medal, complete with four swastikas, pinned to his chest.
Back home, Lindbergh did his part. He railed against U.S. support for Britain and suggested Hitler could be America’s friend. He also blamed the Jews for pushing America into war and undermining its national strength. “A few Jews add strength and character to a country,” he wrote in his diary in 1939, “but too many create chaos. And we are getting too many.” In a speech for the America First Committee just months before Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh declared, “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish [sic] and the Roosevelt Administration.” Instead of worrying about Nazi aggression, Americans should be worried about the Jews. “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government,” Lindbergh said.
Roosevelt saw the pilot turned pundit for what he was. “I am absolutely convinced that Lindbergh is a Nazi,” he told friends. Yet much of the public still adored and trusted Lindbergh, and his words carried real weight. If the attack on Pearl Harbor had not forced America into the war, it’s quite possible that Lindbergh’s view would have prevailed. The novelist Philip Roth sketched out this scenario with chilling realism in his book The Plot Against America. In Roth’s all-too-plausible alternative history, Lindbergh runs for president on an “America First” platform, defeats Roosevelt, and makes peace with Hitler. Anti-Semitism surges, fascism takes root in the United States, and soon Jews and political dissenters face widespread persecution.
After the 2016 election, Roth was asked if he saw parallels between Lindbergh and Trump, who after all had adopted the same slogan. The key difference, Roth said, was that Lindbergh, “despite his Nazi sympathies and racist proclivities,” was a man of substance and accomplishment. “Trump is just a con artist.” It’s a fair point. But in the years since, the similarities have piled up. Trump, like Lindbergh before him, admires dictators and disdains democracy. His devotion to Vladimir Putin seems to have only grown since Russia invaded Ukraine and began murdering civilians and abducting children. He doesn’t bother to hide his hostility toward NATO and America’s democratic allies. And like Lindbergh, Trump exploits prejudices against minorities at home to derail aid to allies abroad. That’s why Trump’s acolytes in Congress are always trying to divert attention from the very real invasion of Ukraine by heavily armed Russian troops to the ginned-up “invasion” of America by destitute Central American migrants, many of them women and children. It’s xenophobic three-card monte, and the American people are the marks.
Generally speaking, today’s “America First” crowd opposing aid for Ukraine falls into the same three categories as it did in Roosevelt’s time.
