Tangle - As states adopt phone bans, a debate emerges on what to do next.

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

As the academic year gets underway, a growing number of U.S. states have enacted laws banning or restricting cell phone use in schools. 17 states and Washington, D.C. implemented new rules this year, joining several other states with existing restrictions. Scores of school districts and individual schools have also enacted their own policies. These laws range from incentives for schools to curtail phone use to prohibitions only in classrooms to outright bans for the entire school day, with different rules for different age groups. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you support banning smartphones in schools? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Come on, Sheriff. We all want to hear about who killed that young couple. The girl didn't die. On September 26th. You're stabbed, right? It's been going on for years. You're the only one that survived. In this town, the only stranger is you.

Why are you doing this? Because you're here. Open the door. Let me out of here. Let me out! The Strangers, Chapter 2, only in theater, September 26th. Swiped is a new movie inspired by the provocative real-life story of the visionary founder of online dating platform Bumble. Played by Lily James, Swiped introduces recent college grad Whitney Wolfe

as she uses extraordinary grit and ingenuity to break into the male-dominated tech industry, paving her way to becoming the youngest female self-made billionaire. An official selection of the Toronto International Film Festival, the Hulu original film Swiped starts streaming September 19th, Only on Disney Plus. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecues lit, but there's nothing to grill.

When the in-laws decide that actually they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, in my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and it is Wednesday, September 17th. Today, we are covering phone bans in school, the debate around taking phones away from kids while they're in school, middle school, and high school. We're going to talk about exactly what people are saying about this debate. There's opposition, there's support, there's new odds. It's a really juicy one with a lot of interesting social implications in my view. So we're going to dive in all of that. Before we do, I want to give you a quick heads up that this Friday, we're going to be

replying to some of the responses to our coverage of Charlie Kirk's assassination. We're going to share criticism. We're going to share praise. We're going to reply to some of the criticism, though we're going to let some of it just stand on its own. As always, we want to involve our readers and listeners in the debate. And we think this is a great moment to elevate some dissenting voices. So a quick reminder that Friday editions are from members only. You'll get a free preview. of the edition if you're on our free podcast feed, but you have to become a member to unlock all of our content and to get ad-free podcasts. You can do that by going to reetangle.com forward slash membership. All right, with that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's

main topic, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Utah County Attorney's Office charged the suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk with aggravated murder and six other counts. Utah County Attorney General Jeff Gray said that the state will seek the death penalty. Number two, a New York justice dismissed state terrorism charges against a suspect in the killing of the United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson, finding the evidence for the charges legally insufficient. The suspect is still charged with second-degree murder and also faces

federal charges. Number three, House Republicans released the text of their stopgap funding bill that would fund the federal government at current levels through November 21st, while also increasing security funding for public officials. Speaker Mike Johnson said he expects the chamber to vote on the bill by Friday. Number four, President Donald Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and four of its reporters, alleging that they spread false and defamatory content about him. And number five, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled four to three to decline to hear a challenge to a lower court decision that disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fonney Willis from prosecuting the criminal

racketeering case against President Trump and his allies. Willis was appealing the decision to remove her from the prosecution team due to her romantic relationship with a private lawyer on the case. A million students in the nation's largest school district who head back into the classroom tomorrow. Today, students of Mount Vernon as well as Yonkers, they'll begin day one, but for all students in New York State, they will have to adhere to that bell-to-bell cell phone ban. They will have to disconnect those electronic devices, and that's for students from kindergarten all the way to the 12th grade.

As the academic year gets underway, a growing number of U.S. states have enacted laws banning or restricting cell phone use in schools. 17 states and Washington, D.C. implemented new rules this year, joining several other states with existing restrictions. Scores of school districts and individual schools have also enacted their own policies. These laws range from incentives for schools to curtail phone use to prohibitions only in classrooms to outright bans for the entire school day with different rules for different age groups. A little bit of history here. In the 1980s and 90s, many schools banned pagers over concerns that they were being used to facilitate drug deals in addition to disrupting

classrooms. In the 2009-2010 academic year, two years after the first iPhone was released, approximately 91% of U.S. public schools prohibited non-academic use of cell phones or smartphones during school hours. However, that percentage began to decrease in the following decade, oscillating between 66 and 77%. The movement to ban phones in schools has drawn on a growing body of research that links successive phone and social media use to lower academic achievement and psychological well-being. These findings are largely echoed by teachers who report that cell phone use is increasingly causing major distractions in the classroom.

However, some students of existing phone bans in European schools have found little to no effect on grades or behavior. Students themselves are more mixed on the value of these bans, with many saying the benefits of phones outweigh the potential harms. Some parents also oppose restricting phone use, citing the importance of reaching their child at any time in the event of an emergency. And while more states are adopting bans of some variety, a handful of state legislatures have voted down similar bills. Congress is also taking up the issue. In February, Senator Tom Cotton, the Republican from Arkansas,

and Senator Tim Cain, the Democrat from Virginia, introduced the Focus on Learning Act, which would require the Department of Education to study and report on the use of mobile devices in elementary and secondary schools, then establish a pilot program to award grants to support schools that enact phone bans. Today, we'll explore the debate over banning phones in schools with views from proponents and opponents, and then Isaac's take. You're stabbed, right? It's been going on for years. We're the only one that survived. In this town, the only stranger is you.

Why are you doing this? Because you're here. Open the door. Let me out of here! Let me out! Strangers, Chapter 2, only in theater, September 26th. Swiped is a new movie inspired by the provocative real-life story of the visionary founder of online dating platform.

Bumble. Played by Lily James, Swiped introduces recent college grad Whitney Wolf as she uses extraordinary grit and ingenuity to break into the male-dominated tech industry, paving her way to becoming the youngest female self-made billionaire. An official selection of the Toronto International Film Festival, the Hulu original film Swiped starts streaming September 19th, only on Disney Plus. All right, first of let's start with what the proponents are saying. Proponents of phone bans say they are a simple but effective strategy to keep kids focused and present in the classroom. Some argue the trade-offs of bans are worth it to help students' social and academic development.

Others note the positive effects of phone bans in schools that have them. In the New York Post, Marnie McCarrie said, We've done enormous damage to kids with smartphones. We must ban them in schools. because children are hurting. Behind in school after pandemic closures, many children are now struggling with another major barrier to learning, smartphone addiction. Two-thirds of American students say they are distracted by their digital devices during class, McCarrie wrote. There's also a secondhand smoke effect. More than half of students are distracted by the devices of other students, according to a 2022 program for international student assessment

study. It's a complex problem, but one solution is embarrassingly simple. Banned phones in American classrooms. While phones are not the sole driver of today's child mental health epidemic, they are playing a major role. Forty-four percent of teenagers say that their cell phones make them anxious, according to a Pew Research study. That's probably because apps can make children feel ugly, left out, and lonely. Addictions isolate people, and phone addiction is no exception, McCarrie said. Teenagers use their phones in lieu of face-to-face interaction with peers, but school is exactly where children should be developing those social muscles. In fact, they need human connections for their learning and to be a part of a community.

In the Atlantic, Gail Cornwall explored what many parents miss about the phones and schools debate. Just as objects in motion stay in motion, kids who have a cell phone use it. And my daughter very much had hers while in school when she's supposed to be focused on learning and engaging with people around her Cornwall wrote. I appreciate her conscientious desire to deal with things right away. I also appreciate why many parents want their kids. to have a phone accessible. It can be comforting to think that kids can be reached in an emergency and convenient to communicate on the fly when after-school plans change. On the other hand,

as a former teacher and a writer steeped in the academic literature on psychology, child development, and pedagogy, I know that letting kids have phones in schools comes with many costs. They can distract students from learning, increase social anxiety and stress, and suppress opportunities for emotional and intellectual growth. They can also diminish kids' autonomy, in effect serving as a digital umbilical cord tethering students to their parents, Cornwall said. When kids can't avoid one another, growth happens. Exposure to little discomforts, such as accidentally locking eyes with an attractive student, can build teens' tolerance for future discomfort and make them more likely to put themselves out there.

In after Babel, Gilbert Scurts wrote about what happened when his school banned phones for a year. This school year, students must hand in their phones at entry or we immediately call their parents. Consequences for smuggling your phone past entry are high. Immediate detention, call home to parents, and a personal visit to the dean mid-class, Scurch said. The results have been spectacular. Teachers don't have to fight an impossible battle against tech. Students talk to each other between classes. The cafeteria has the sound of conversation.

Teachers cover material faster. Cyberbullying has fallen. When a fight happens, half the school doesn't immediately run out of the classroom to watch. When I compared the seven years I had battling the cell phone in the classroom versus almost an entire year of phone-free schooling, there is no comparison. Our kids are smarter, more social, and more motivated to do things that they actually want to accomplish in this world when they don't have a Pavlovian vibration derailing their attention every 20 seconds, Scurge wrote.

Bring on the phone-free school legislation. You wouldn't let your kids smoke cigarettes in your class, so why are we letting them consume electronic brain cocaine? All right, that is it for what proponents are saying, which brings us to what opponents are saying. Opponents of bands argue phones are vital communication tools that schools shouldn't have the power to take away. Some suggest bands are ineffective and ignore the realities of modern life. Other safe phone bands could widen attainment gaps between schools. In USA Today, Kerry Rodriguez wrote,

parents don't want cell phone bans at schools. We want smarter rules. I'm deeply concerned by the growing push to ban cell phones in schools, as well as the flagrant disregard governors and state legislators have shown in discounting where the majority of parents stand on this divisive issue, Rodriguez said. The National Parents Union and other organizations have surveyed families, and the findings are consistent. Parents see cell phones as a critical communications tool. They want reasonable and balanced school policies, not extreme measures that ignore the reality. of family life in 2025. Cell phones can be distracting.

They can be a nuisance in the classroom. But banning them misses the point and ignores the bigger picture. Here's the reality. More than 90% of teens have a cell phone by age 14 and nearly half own one by the age of 10. In modern-day America,

phones are how kids communicate with family, keep up with friends, do their school work, and figure out how to navigate the world around them, Rodriguez, wrote. If phones are truly creating problems in classrooms, then the solution is not to ban, but to prepare educators to manage the challenge.

In age of awareness, Karen Gross said, there are better options than banning phones. Yes, students are struggling in schools with mental wellness. Banning cell phones and eradicating social media isn't the answer. Banning something oftentimes increases the desire for and effort to get or use whatever is taken away from offspring. Ban candy and kids want more of it. Ban contact with a particular friend or romantic interest and the desire for contact increases, Gross wrote. Furthermore, we know that for some students and their families,

a phone creates both connection and a sense of safety. If parents know they can reach their child in an emergency, that helps them let youth have increased freedom. We need to use the cell phones four and to advance educational goals. Rather than confiscate them, we must collaborate on how to use them, Gross said. Ask students for their solutions. How do they want cell phones treated in school? Empower them to talk about it. Reflect on differing perspectives. come up with compromises. How powerful would that be, enabling students to address an issue? That would be a life lesson worth replicating. In USA Today, Brandon Cardette Hernandez suggested the real crisis isn't in your kids' hands. I've been a teacher, a principal, and a senior

education advisor to former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who oversaw the country's largest school system. And now the president of an education company. And I'm telling you, this is a distraction. Of course, we don't want kids using their phones throughout the school day without purpose and intentionality. But the real crisis isn't in your kids' hands. It's in their reading scores, Cardette Hernandez wrote. We reach for easy fixes, fueled by nostalgia and fear. But banning phones won't turn back the clock on childhood. It will just widen the gap between the kids who have and the kids who don't. When you take away cell phones, you don't create equity. You erase it. In underfunded schools, smartphones are calculators, translators.

researchers, research tools, and sometimes the only reliable internet connection a student has. For multilingual learners, for kids without Wi-Fi at home, that device is a lifeline, Cardette Hernandez said. The anxious generation isn't our kids. It's us. We're the one struggling to navigate a changing world, grasping for control. But our children don't need us to fear the future. They need us to prepare them for it. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what some supporters and opponents are saying about phone bans, which brings us to my take. A few weeks ago, I was talking with my father-in-law about this very subject.

He retired last year after teaching in public schools for about 20 years. And he said two things that really struck me. The first and maybe most disheartening observation was just how much the lunch periods and time between classes had changed. Before, he said, you would see high school kids socializing, fighting, flirting, and generally just being kids together. Now, between periods, most kids would roam the hallway, zombie-like, looking down at their phones and barely interacting with each other. He found the change in behavior incredibly sad. The second was his description of being a teacher in this environment. In effect, he said, you are competing for every kid's attention with their favorite TV show, video game, and best friend at every moment.

He put it like this, imagine a teacher trying to deliver a lesson while a TV behind them blast every student's favorite show. This is what it's like trying to teach when kids can just look under their desks and break out their phones, and preventing that is not as easy as just telling them to put it away. I'll be honest, these two points alone make me think we should support phone bans. in school. I just can't shake the idea that we are both losing something deeply human, this critical period of social development for kids, while also asking teachers and kids to do something impossible, which is focus and learn when students have the biggest, most intrusive distraction possible right there in their pocket. While some data from overseas shows no

improvement in grades after these bands were implemented, other findings from the U.S. show students' moods, focus, and health all improve with less screen time. But to be honest, I'm less interested here in the research than I am in common sense. We know what phones are like. We all use them. We know how distracting and addictive they are. Think about your own smartphone usage and habits. How would you have done in school if you had that with you at all times?

I have a theory that we're starting to see a generational shift toward less screen time and less phone time. Millennials, the last generation, to experience an era before smartphones. generation are now parenting toddlers and children entering adolescents, and they're seeing their kids lose out on many of the experiences they remember fondly. So many of my friends who have kids are horrified at the inclusion of tablets and phones in school. They're saddened by watching their kids spend too much time inside playing video games or scrolling social media. In response, I've observed a growing movement to push kids away from these technologies and toward outdoor play, individualism and real-life experiences.

Right now, I think this movement is mostly contained to wealthy, highly educated homes, but I can see it growing. We may not see the force of that movement paired with these policies for years, but I do think we'll see that impact with time. This is a challenging position for me to hold personally, because it is antithetical to many other views I have. I'm generally skeptical of government bans on anything, and in this case would be making an exception for one of the most ubiquitous technologies on the planet.

I acknowledge the weakness of these inconsistencies here, but also, we know, don't we? Just look around. Do we need a book like The Anxious Generation to see that far too many teenagers and adults are addicted to their phones? Do we need double-blind studies to understand that a 16-year-old is going to pay more attention in class without a dopamine pump in their pocket? Does anybody doubt that attention spans are plummeting and that teachers have an impossible job in this environment? Still, in the interest of some ideological consistency, and because it's probably the right way to think about this, too, I'll caveat my position in a few ways. First, these bans should not come at the federal or state level. Instead, they should be decided locally by individual districts and school boards.

They are very different issues, but this view is similar to my argument that individual governing bodies of specific sports should be able to make their own rules around trans athletes rather than have those rules dictated by Congress or even state governments. Here, too, the solution is to empower local governments to regulate. I think and hope school boards across the country will enforce such bans, and if my kids were in a school district and I had a vote, I would certainly support a local board member who ran on a platform calling for phone bans. Second, parents must understand that a phone ban in school is not going to unlock a cultural shift or from screen time and social media obsession by itself, that has to start at home and actually

with parents. When I read some parents argue that it's important for them to be able to contact their child in the event of an emergency, my immediate thought is, well, is it? What are the circumstances where a kid being able to text their parents in the middle of an emergency at school or vice versa is going to actually solve much of anything? In the nightmare scenario of something like a school shooting, kids are still bound by emergency protocols at school. They'll be locked down or evacuated. The school will be swarmed by police and cordoned off and only after the situation is stabilized will kids be reconnected with parents. If the goal is to just know your kid is safe, that's possible without a smartphone. Apple watches or dumb cell phones or updates from the school

can do the trick. And the examples of parents having the ability to intervene are vanishingly rare. The upside is mostly just contact, the illusion of access and protection. Is that trade-off worth allowing phones in school at all hours? This is actually a key part of the entire story. It's just as much about the parents' anxiety as the kid's addiction. Karen Gross argues under what opponents are saying that if parents know they can reach their child in an emergency, that helps them let youth have increased freedom.

Actually, what would give kids genuine freedom is not monitoring their every movement, obsessing over their location at all times and expecting to be able to contact them instantly. This is, after all, how kids were raised for millennia. It's how I was raised as a high schooler just 20 years ago. Are we really so far detached from that era that we can't remember kids can be okay on their own

without instant access to parents for eight hours a day? Third and finally is that most schools should think about this with a student-first approach, one that includes students in the policy and facilitate some kind of buy-in. Trying to strong-arm students, especially teenagers, inherently risk eliciting rebellious behavior. If phones become forbidden fruit the same way alcohol or marijuana are for teenagers, then we know what's going to happen.

Kids will just misbehave and deceive in order to use their phones. High schools could, for instance, create a list of options about how to approach a phone ban and then allow a student body to vote on the finer details. Do you get X amount of hours of phone access? a day or get your phones only between classes? Do you have to put them in lockers or can you not bring them to school at all? Honestly, I don't think anyone has the best answer yet. And if we let the kids drive the ship just a bit, then they'll probably commit more to these changes. However, these bands play out over the next few years. I'll say this. I'm glad to see the backlash

against screens. I'm happy to see so many parents rallying behind a call to get their kids offline and get them outside. I'm happy we're identifying and pushing back against the detriment of reliance on this technology. For the last decade or so, we've been conducting a massive experiment on what happens when you give millions of kids with underdeveloped brains unlimited access to intentionally addictive social media platforms where they can go from watching fight videos

to accessing porn to bullying a classmate all with a few swipes. It turns out the results aren't great. And now we want to chart a different path forward. I, for one, am happy to see the change. I just hope more parents start embracing it. All right, that is it for my take. Today's staff dissent comes from our editor-at-large, Camille Foster.

Camille wasn't available to record this, so I'm just going to read what he wrote. Camille said, quote, I'm generally fine with small-scale restrictions by individual schools, and I share the general concern about phone usage among teenagers, but I've long been skeptical of abstinence-oriented approaches. Developing a healthy relationship with these ubiquitous technologies is not only possible, but essential for teenagers. And I worry that leaning on bands may hinder their development of the cultural antibodies

they'll need to participate and thrive in a modern world. Adaptation, not prohibition, seems like a more appropriate disposition. We'll be right back after this quick break. Come on, Sheriff. We all want to hear about who killed that young couple. The girl didn't die. On September 26th. You're stabbed, right?

It's been going on for years. You're the only one that survived. In this town, the only stranger is you. Why are you doing this? Because you're here. Open the door. Let me out of here. Let me out!

Strangers, Chapter 2, only in theater, September 26th. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? when your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecues lit but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that actually they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders.

Service fees exclusions and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over deliver. All right, that is it for my take, and that brings us to your question's answer. This one's from Toby in Overland Park, Kansas. Toby said, how big of a deal is this International Court of Justice, or ICJ, advisory opinion on climate change? What happens as it butts up against the current U.S. administration's approach to energy and regulation? Where are the implications for public opinion and the political will for climate action in the United States? states. Okay, so the implications of this opinion from the ICJ, the legal arm of the United

Nations, are as significant as they can get for the international body. This ruling states that climate change represents a global existential threat. Countries have a responsibility to act and due diligence to protect the shared environment, and injured states could have standing to sue others. Furthermore, the advisory opinion says that any state may accuse another of failure to act, not just those seeking reparations. For those to agree with the UN that climate change presents an existential threat. This ruling will matter because it signals the seriousness with which the UN is approaching climate change. The UN has now provided guidelines and benchmarks to states that have voluntarily agreed to prioritize global

issues like human rights, nuclear disarmament, and greenhouse gas emissions. Each state is still sovereign, and at the end of the day, no country or international body will have the ability to enforce its decision on another. That's a limiting factor of rulings like this, but it doesn't make them meaningless. They'll still matter a great deal to countries that prioritize climate change. But, obviously, the current U.S. government has a different set of priorities. Recall that President Trump ran on a party platform that didn't mention climate once and he withdrew from the U.S. Paris Accords on day one of his current term. Maybe a future administration will see things differently, but the immediate impact of this ruling on the current administration's

decision-making is probably none. If anything, it could prompt them to make a show of disregarding the ICJ's guidance more broadly. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac.

Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the United States and Qatar were on the verge of finalizing a defense agreement. The announcement follows Israel's strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar's capital, which President Trump and Qatar officials rebuked. Qatar has acted as the primary mediator between Israel and Hamas in ceasefire negotiations over the war in Gaza, and Rubio said the U.S. views the country as an important security partner in the region.

We want them to know how much we appreciate and respect all the time and work and effort they put in in the past to these negotiations, and we hope they'll re-engage despite everything that's happened, Rubio said. The Hill has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right. Next up is our numbers section. As of April 30th, 11 U.S. states have a statewide ban or restriction on cell phone use in schools. 17 U.S. states have introduced legislation to restrict cell phone use in schools. According to a June 2025 Pew Research poll, 74% of U.S. adults say they support banning middle school and high school students from using cell phones during class, while 19% say they oppose it. 44% of U.S. adults say they support banning middle and high school students from using cell phones for the entire school day, while 46% oppose it. The increase in the percentage of U.S. adults age 18 to 29 who support banning middle school and high school students from using cell phones during class from the years 2024 to 2025 is plus 12%. The increase in percentage of U.S. adults age 18 to 29 who support banning middle school and high school students from using cell phones for the entire school day between the years.

is 2024 and 2025, is plus 7%. According to the School Pulse Panel, 77% of U.S. public schools have bans using cell phones during class, while 38% have bans outside of class. 33% of middle school teachers say that students being distracted by cell phones is a major problem in their classroom, and 72% of high school teachers say the same. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day Story.

Lena Albinali, a 14-year-old who lives with her grandmother in California, noticed that many seniors have become disconnected and lonely. She also noticed that her own grandmother had many skills that she didn't and that her generation hadn't learned. Lena saw an opportunity. She created the Golden Connections Club to bridge the generational gap, providing companionship to seniors, and giving her generation access to lost skills like writing cards,

embroidery, and making jewelry. What started as a monthly meetup has now become a four-week summer camp. These younger generations are really eager to learn, volunteer instructor Shamim Syed said. Their inspiration gave us hope and a purpose. Nice news has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that can do a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off.

Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Hunter Asperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul,

Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com Swiped is a new movie inspired by the provocative real-life story of the visionary founder of online dating platform Bumble. Played by Lily James, Swiped introduces recent college grad Whitney Wolfe, as she uses extraordinary grit and ingenuity

to break into the male-dominated tech industry, paving her way to becoming the youngest female self-made billionaire. An official selection of the Toronto International Film Festival, the Hulu original film Swiped, starts streaming September 19th, only on Disney Plus. What's better than a well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribby sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribai you ordered without even leaving the kitty pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders.

Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over deliver. Come on, Sheriff. We all want to hear about who killed that young couple. The girl didn't die. On September 26th. You're stabbed, right?

It's been going on for years. We're the only one that survived. In this town, the only stranger is. you. Why are you doing this? Because you're here. Open the door! Let me out of here! Let me out! Strangers, Chapter 2, only in theater, September 26.