Sextortionist Rings and Other Fear-Mongering: A Reflection on the Smartphone Debate

The best moment of the debate that I recently anticipated in my essay, David, Meet Goliath, was when over the top of my computer screen I saw my 14-year-old giving me two thumbs up and a huge grin. She and my 12-year-old had not only humored me with a practice session the day before, they had also shared their insights based on their personal experiences growing up with phones and social media. (“Yeah, some kids are on their phones too much but not everyone. Social media was probably more interesting when it first started, but it’s not so exciting now.”)

When the debate ended at 12:15 on Monday, I rushed downstairs because I had five minutes to get my youngest to his afternoon camp. My eldest, who had made my son’s lunch and was hanging out with him, said she was shocked at what she had overheard: “these phones are destroying families!” She told me she listened to ten minutes and found “riveting” how disparate the gloomy portrayal of phones in families were compared to her reality. My Tik-Tok-loving teen gave examples of how our family continues to share experiences and do things together despite each one of us having a smartphone.

In that ten minutes, my own teenager could suss out the hyperbole and develop her counterargument.¹

Photo by Tonik on Unsplash

My perceptive daughter’s shock, disbelief, and reasonable viewpoint offers a glimpse into what I felt for the 75 minutes as a panelist for this virtual debate sponsored by the Institute of Art and Ideas. I had been invited to represent an alternative perspective to the headliner, Jonathan Haidt, and a woman known as “the strictest headmistress in the UK,” Katharine Birbalsingh.

These two panelists were aligned, sharing the belief that smart phones are causing serious harm to teens and should be banned before high school (along with no social media before age 16), as well as outright banned at school.

I took the position that:

1. We don’t have evidence to support an alarmist stance.

2. We are over-focusing on phones and social media at the expense of attending to other social ills affecting our youth.

3. We should approach technology from the perspective of an opportunity for skill development and nurturing autonomy rather than a one-dimensional threat.

Except I had little opportunity to express these views as the other two panelists volleyed their alarmist claims back and forth with fervor and unwavering conviction (and my guess is a lot of practice with the same talking points from many media appearances).

Fear-mongering and hyperbole in surround sound. Right off the bat, the words “rapists” and “gangs” were on the table. At the end, we got around to “sextortionist rings” and deaths from TikTok. Sigh. The host, BBC journalist Roger Hearing, did his best to carve out airtime for my less provocative ideas advocating common-sense and balance, but elbowing my way in proved a challenge.

As is quite human, I thought of all my best comebacks in the hours and days after the debate. I will not be requesting a redo, so instead I am going to share my responses here.

My Turn

My quick response that I couldn’t fully articulate in the tornado of misinformation attempting to prove smartphones cause pervasive, unequivocal damage to teens and families: these fears are not only dramatically overblown, they get in the way of a more productive conversation about actual risks.

The children and teens who are most vulnerable to the worst possible outcomes of using phones and social media have deeper vulnerabilities that need addressing. When we as parents openly talk with our children about how to engage with the internet and social media, including the dangers, they are better protected against the dangers.

Here's what else I wanted to express in the midst of being stunned by the terror tenor of the discussion:

• We simply can’t say that phones and social media have caused a youth mental health crisis. Despite Haidt’s presentation of data in his book, multiple critiques by experts in the field show we cannot make this conclusion when evaluating the body of research as a whole.² Basing a real-life conclusion like “phones cause mental health problems and should be banned” on statistics from studies is not how research is supposed to work. Statistics represent average findings across a study group; they do not tell you what’s going to happen for your individual child. Statistics should not determine parenting choices.

• This narrative of phones/social media causing a mental health crisis, including the label “anxious generation,” paints a one-dimensional portrait of today’s teens that is unfair and incomplete. Millions of adolescents are not walking around with their faces glued to their phones 24/7. They are not passive victims to technology. We should regard our youth with more agency, respect and appreciation for how they are coping well with the complexity of our modern times. I recently interviewed child development expert, Ellen Galinsky, about her new book sharing research findings about the positives of today’s adolescents. It’s critical we add these strengths and capabilities to what is becoming an increasingly pessimistic, and overly simplistic, story about our teens.

• “There are laws forbidding alcohol, cigarettes, and child marriage; the same should be true for phones.” This argument is a false equivalence, which I did have a chance to state. Alcohol and smoking are all risk, no benefit (thank you Devorah Heitner for this clear conclusion in a recent Newsweek article). Social media can have benefits when used for connection, building community, fun, innovation, and creativity. There’s no upside to teens drinking and smoking.

• A friend of mine texted after watching the debate that the other two panelists talked as if I were going to hand a 5-year-old a beer and some porn and leave him by himself. It was a joke, but she was noticing that my comments about supporting our children’s digital skill development and respecting their autonomy were being misconstrued as allowing them to be recruited into a life of crime and heathenry. I’m not suggesting free reign for our kids using phones and social media. Autonomy includes structure and healthy limits along with developing skills for competence in the digital world and a teen’s sense of agency over how they use phones and social media.

• Each child needs a different formula of limits and freedom based on how they operate. A generalized banning of phones and social media for all children until certain ages doesn’t align with the reality of child development. And if we dispense with the belief that this technology is causing a mental health crisis, we can see that these bans are not necessary. There is opportunity for our children to develop critical real-world skills, including self-regulation and thinking critically about social media companies’ manipulations. If we only focus on threat, we miss opportunity.

Post-Debate Recovery and Realizations

I left the debate exhausted and disappointed. I had (naively?) hoped we could have a productive discourse about different perspectives on youth with phones and social media.

The three of us do have common ground: we all care deeply and, as I pointed out during the debate, all three of us share an interest in protecting children. We just see the sources of harm and the pathways to protection differently.

The problem comes when this deep care and desire to protect leads to overly simplistic solutions for complex problems. These solutions just don’t work. When I attempted to establish common ground (including agreement with storing phones elsewhere during class to address attention and learning concerns), I was still met with divisive language that kept us rooted in our differences.

I spent the next couple days processing the experience. First, it occurred to me that I was the only one of the three experts who has spent a career researching and working in childhood mental health. That didn’t seem to count for much, which says a lot on its own.

I also realized I likely felt what many of our teens feel when having debates with parents who anxiously restrict and ban because they read a book or listened to a podcast interview. I certainly didn’t feel like anyone on the panel was really listening to the points I was making (besides the very kind host, Roger). The irrationality of the fears seemed to trump the possibility of a reasonable alternative perspective. To me, when this absolutist thinking interferes with constructive dialogue, we’re all losing because we can’t make forward progress. This is exactly what I see happening in families when parents are overly fearful and anxious.

I felt shut out and shut down, and at some moments, like it wasn't even worth speaking up. If our kids feel like this during family debates, it’s not just bad for collaboration, it's bad for... their mental health! Poorer mental health results from feeling like you and your thoughts don't matter, that your feelings will be scoffed at, and you get spurned as you're trying to reach out to connect. If teens experience “discussion” as I experienced this debate, then the very attempt to protect mental health may actually worsen it.

If we want to truly optimize the benefits and mitigate risks of our youth using technology, we need to allow for a richer conversation — collectively in the media and in our homes. If we keep thinking in black and white, we won’t see the shades of hope and possibility.

Despite the stress, disappointment, and exhaustion from participating in the debate, I do not regret it. I felt proud to represent a point of view that I know many experts share. I grounded myself in knowing that at least some parents will appreciate the calm I brought to counteract the panic. There was also something exhilarating about doing something so intimidating and getting to the other side. I did it. I was scared, it was hard, and I did it.

What are your thoughts on these debate points? What do you want to say about the cultural debate on kids and technology?

Want to see the debate for yourself? You can watch it in its entirety here or this clip on YouTube.

In solidarity for less fear and more balance and common-sense in parenting,

Emily

1. Pretty good critical thinking for a kid who has grown up using a smartphone and social media from ages 10 and 11, respectively (the pandemic accelerated our plans, like it did for so many parents making these decisions). Despite our personal circumstances, however, I want to be clear I do not oppose family’s decisions to delay use as late as they can when it works for them!

2. Just a few examples: The new moral panic: Social media (Chris Ferguson), The Panic Over Smartphones Doesn’t Help Teens (Candice Odgers), Are Smartphones Driving Our Teens to Depression? (David Wallace-Wells)