TED Radio Hour - Did social media break a generation — or just change it?

Episode Date: February 20, 2026

Is tech rewiring childhood or exposing what’s already broken? Jonathan Haidt, Catherine Price, and a Gen Z advocate debate social media bans, attention and what “fun” looks like off-screen. Guests include social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, youth online safety activist Maximilian Milovidov and author Catherine Price.TED Radio Hour+ subscribers now get access to bonus episodes, with more ideas from TED speakers and a behind the scenes look with our producers. A Plus subscription also lets you listen to regular episodes (like this one!) without sponsors. Sign-up at plus.npr.org/ted.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

This is the TED Radio Hour. Each week, groundbreaking TED Talks. Our job now is to dream big. Delivered at TED conferences. To bring about the future we want to see. Around the world. To understand who we are. From those talks, we bring you speakers and ideas that will surprise you.

You just don't know what you're going to find. Challenge you. We truly have to ask ourselves, like, why is it noteworthy? And even change you. I literally feel like I'm a different person. Yes. Do you feel that way? Ideas worth spreading.

From TED and NPR. I'm Anoush Zamoroti. Most of us accept that social media has a dark side. But are these platforms finally facing a legal reckoning? A warning, this episode contains mentions of sexual abuse of minors and school shootings. For the very first time, the world's most powerful social media, A landmark case could change how your child consumes social media. A series of trials have begun against meta, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, marking the first

time these big tech companies have actually been tested in court facing claims that they have harmed kids. We're intentionally designed to be addictive, and they are rewiring the way that children think, behave, and learn. And it's not just in the U.S. Australia recently became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 years old. Australia is launching a massive nationwide experiment. French lawmakers have passed a similar ban. To shield underage people from cyber harassment, harmful and inappropriate content,

with other countries lining up. Britain, Ireland, Malaysia and some Indian states among those considering age limits. And some say the person who ignited this global movement to rise up against the harm, of social media on young people is this man, Jonathan Haidt. I am a social psychologist at New York University's Stern School of Business, and I'm the author of The Anxious Generation and the co-author with Catherine Price of The Amazing Generation. Before this, John was well known for his work studying the evolution of morality. But then, about a decade ago, he started noticing something in his classroom.

classroom. So I've been a professor since 1995. I love being a professor. I love teaching. I love students. I love universities. And all of a sudden, in 2014 and then especially 2015, everything changed. Students were much more anxious, much more fragile. There was a lot of unrest and accusation and instability on campus. And it wasn't like this in 2012. And the fact that all our mental health centers were filled at universities across the country was a big mystery. What is happening? The answer is compiled in The Anxious Generation, which is full of charts and graphs backing up his thesis, that technology, particularly social media, has created a warped new kind of childhood. More recently, his book The Amazing Generation brings a more positive message to kids

that they have better things to do with their time than scroll. By the age of 11, 12, 13, the kids are on social media in America and Britain. They're on about five hours a day just on social media. And if you add in the rest of the stuff they do on their phone, you're up to eight to ten hours a day, not counting school, not counting screens in school. And so what does that push out? Everything. It compresses everything. That means you get less sleep, less play, less sunshine.

You don't read books anymore. You don't look into people's eyes very much anymore. You don't spend time with your friends anymore. And so if you spend those crucial years, you know, age 11 or 12 through 16, if you spend those swiping five hours a day on, you know, highly stimulating videos that are not stories, they're not literature, they're just little bits of, you know, silliness. Yes, my claim is that will change brain development in ways that will make you less capable, confident, happy, and sociable as an adult. The conversation about kids and their technology has reached full volume. How much screen time is too much? Is it on parents to set stricter rules at home?

Or should schools and governments step in? Should social media be off limits altogether? Today on the show, the movement to change culture and laws. Why not everyone agrees? I think we've taken this kind of authoritarian approach. We need to teach children how to navigate the world that's existing now. And an antidote that maybe we can all get behind. What I call true fun is this confluence of these three states.

It's playfulness, connection, and flow. It's also something that phones block. So back to John Heights, Anxious Generation. The book has been on the bestseller list since it debuted in 2024 and chronicles the harms of social media on young people. So in addition to the mental health harms, obviously sleep deprivation has all kinds of effects on kids. The loss of exercise, the immobility,

has all kinds of health effects. But there are really serious direct harms that come mostly from the way that social media platforms put children into conversation with anonymous men. And it's always men. And so the major areas are that these men want either money or sex from the children. So kids are sex started every year. And each one is traumatized. These are not correlations. These are direct harms.

And then there's the new thing, which is gaming and sports betting. porn, of course. Not so new. That's right. Now, you know, gambling, I mean, slot machines are literally the inspiration for some of these platforms. They studied Las Vegas. They studied behaviorism. If you ever wondered why you pull down on your phone, you pull down to get a fresh set of emails or texts or whatever, that was literally copied from slot machine design. So these are addictive platforms and apps, and addiction is a very serious thing to do to a child. So we've got to stop. We've got to just stop this. And the idea that, well, we have to wait until we're sure. We have to do more research. I think we need to be a little

more careful here and say, unless something is proven safe for kids, we probably should keep them away from it. So let's start with schools. 35 states now have phone-free school laws or executive orders. Did this happen easily? Tell us about that process. Oh, my God. It was the easiest social change ever undertaken by humanity. So here's what happened. So in the anxious generation, I realize, you know what, there's four steps that solve collective action problems. If we do these, we roll back the phone-based childhood. Number one, no smartphone before high school. Number two, no social media before 16. Number three, phone-free schools. It's completely insane that children can basically, you know, watch television and play video games and watch porn and do everything while sitting at their desks and class. That's just, that never should have happened. And the fourth is far more independence,

free play, and responsibility in the real world. We have to give kids back a childhood worth having. So those are the four norms. And the amazing thing that happened was because pretty much every teacher in the country and in the world was pulling their hair out. Every teacher in the world had to be more interesting than TikTok and none of us can be. My book came out and most politicians are parents. And so many governors, Red State and Blue State, reached out to me, reached out to my team. And we helped them.

We made it clear, do not just ban it during class time. And 20 states actually did it right, which is phone-free for the whole school day, because that's where you get the social benefits. If you just do it in class time, then what do you think kids are doing between classes? What do you think kids are doing at lunch? They're all on their phone all the time.

When a school goes phone-free and it's well-enforced, you get magical results. And the universal thing we hear is that teachers say we hear laughter in the hallways again. Thanks to your work, a lot of governments are looking at putting age limits on social media. We saw Australia's under 16 social media ban go into effect in December, 2025. How did that unfold? It seemed to happen kind of fast. Yes, this is all happening very fast because once everybody sees the problem, they start acting. So what happened was the premiere of South Australia, one of the Australian states.

His wife was reading The Anxious Generation in bed, and she turns to him and says, Peter, you've got to read this book and then you've got to do something about it. And he did. He commissioned a report from Supreme Court Justice about how it could be done. And then he did it in South Australia. And then the premier of New South Wales, who's from the opposite party. So in every country, it's totally bipartisan because conservatives have kids, liberals have kids. If you have kids, you've seen this problem. How do they enforce these bans?

Like, how does it work? Oh, it's easy. You put the responsibility on the companies that are making a defective consumer product. And so there are dozens and dozens of companies that do age assurance using a variety of technologies. And Julie E.Minn-Grant, the ES Safety Commissioner, put out a press release a month ago with updates. All 10 platforms complied, and they closed down 5 million accounts for the 2.5 million Australian children in that age range. And yes, there was a surge of VPN usage. Kids figure out how to get around it.

But then the surge went down because, you know, the kids check their, they check their social media 30 times a day. And if they have to boot up a VPN every time, that's a little bit of friction. And then meanwhile, we have these lawsuits and trials that are arguing, at least here in the U.S., that platforms knowingly designed experiences that harmed kids. I mean, John, I've been reporting on this topic for over a decade. And I think this is the first time that we're seeing big tech truly be tested in court. And can you explain what is different this time? Why does this have legs?

Yeah. So we have a dangerous consumer product. We have a lot of internal documents showing that they know this. They write about addiction. They write about variable ratio reinforcement schedules. And the reason why these companies have never faced liability. They have never been held. responsible because Section 230 the Communications Decency Act has been interpreted very broadly

by the courts to say, no one can hold them responsible for what they see. No one can hold the platforms responsible for content that they didn't make. Okay, I want to make sure we include the tech company's perspective. A meta spokesperson has said they disagree with the allegations. They are confident that there's evidence that they support young people. that they actually try to be as safe as possible, but also censor as little as possible. YouTube says the allegations are simply not true. So keeping on in mind, what does accountability look like to you?

I mean, financial settlements are one thing, but what else are you hoping for? So if listeners go to metasinternalresearch.org, my team gathered 31 accounts of studies that Meta did. And a lot of them show direct harm. Meta even did an RCT. They even did a reduction experiment, and they found that when Facebook and Instagram users stop using their product for a week, they get less depressed. So these companies, most of them, again, especially meta, TikTok, and Snap, there are design changes that they could easily make that would solve many of these problems.

Now, yes, they say, oh, we put on better parental controls, we put on a timer, we nudge you. So it's not that they've done nothing, but they haven't done anything that would bite into their bottom line and that would actually reduce addiction. or engagement. Meaning, like, stopping, like, infinite scroll or auto play or algorithmic recommendations, those sorts of things. Yeah, that's right. All those sorts of things.

So what success looks like for me is that we have a sea change in our thinking about these platforms, that they don't have a magical get out of jail card where, you know, any other, every other consumer product, if they kill kids, they're held responsible. And so that's going to end. And the whole industry is going to see, you know what? If you do things that are hurting kids, you actually need to be held. responsible. In a minute, why some young people aren't buying John Heights's description of their generation.

When you label an entire generation is anxious, it kind of takes away our agency in a way. On the show today, kids, screens, and social media. I'm Manus Shumeroody, and you're listening to The TED Radio Hour from NPR. We'll be right back. It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Manoosh Zamoroti. On the show today, kids and social media. and the movement spearheaded by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt

to try to save what he calls the anxious generation. He's found plenty of disciples among concerned parents and politicians, and we'll hear more from him in a minute. But what do some members of Gen Z think about his ideas? Are you an anxious generation, Maximilian? No, I'm not an anxious generation. When you label an entire generation as anxious, it kind of defines them. Genzi is just going to think, well, we're cursed.

You know, there's nothing we can really do about it. Just by labeling us that takes away our agency in a way. This is Maximilian Milvedov. In some ways, he is your average 19-year-old. I think I was born when the iPhone was created. So I didn't know a world without it. I had initially struggled with my own compulsive social media use, where you really can't stop, and this harms your sleep, your school, your relationships.

So Maximilian saw himself. and his friends struggling. But he also saw his mom, who's an advisor to tech companies and parents, trying to help make the internet safer for young people. And so rather than delete his accounts, he joined TikTok's Youth Advisory Council. I like to joke to my friends that when you see that video

as you're about to go to sleep, and it's telling you, go to sleep on TikTok, we helped implement those features. I want to ask you, you know, despite the fact that you recognized your own compulsive, as you called it, behavior when you were using social media. You wrote a op-ed pushing back on Jonathan Heights book. Tell me what your problem was with the book and why you decided to write it. Let me start off with what I agree with him on. I'm going to give him credit because I think that

he has brought awareness to a real problem with teen mental health. And I think that's the first step. 40% of U.S. high school students report persistent sadness and hopelessness. But in my opinion, the cause is misdiagnosed. We have economic precarity. College costs have gone up 169% since the 1980s, adjusted for inflation. We have the climate crisis. We have record levels of institutional distrust. UnisF has said that basically half of children don't trust adults and world leaders to make good decisions for them. We had the pandemic. We had a rise in school shootings and we had a rise in wars that we haven't seen since 1946. So I think it's not as simple as just saying, that social media is the problem. We recognize that there are real harms for all users of social media, eating disorder content, violence, sexual harassment, extortion. So I'm not at all dismissing those harms, but there are plenty of other alternative explanations for this. What do you think about Heights approach in terms of the four core norms that he suggests? So no smartphones before high school, no social media before 16, phone-free schools, and then the last one is more independent.

free play and responsibility in the real world? The least problematic one of those, I think, is the phone-free schools. Research has proven that attention goes up, but kids will always find a way to get around it. We hide phones in pencil cases, we go to the bathroom. We even went out on an expedition. They told us to hand in our phones, and everyone brought their old iPhone 5s and handed those in and used their phones the whole time without the teachers knowing. So we're really creative, and we will find ways around it.

But when everyone's off their phone in school, there's already no FOMO, and it's also temporary and bounded. So I think that's not a terrible take. But after bands in Australia and the UK and France following, we've taken extreme measures for something that isn't proven to cause harm at the population level. Researchers recently interviewed 25,000 teenagers over three years in Manchester, I believe. And they found that there were no effects at the population level for worse mental health outcomes. So I think when we have these knee-jerk reactions, the wrong fixes could backfire and worsen the problem. Kids will be able to access it if they're creative enough. They may even access platforms that are worse.

In Australia, researchers have been concerned that children will migrate to more dangerous platforms that are less regulated and that they also won't come to their parents for help because they'll be scared and they'll think that they're breaking the law. And we never want to put kids in a situation where they feel like they have to be secretive about what they're doing online. giving these arbitrary numbers, the no phones until 14, and the no social media until 16, there are plenty of exceptions to that. And it really depends on the family and on the individual maturity of children, right? Parents know best what their children are going to be doing. So I think it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think parenting works the same way it did for when Haight and I were growing up.

There was a real sort of patriarchal, top-down, do what you're told. authoritative way of parenting, and only now are we trying to listen and understand and talk things out. And I wonder if that is some of what you are calling out as well, that they're not asking kids, what do you think? They're not talking about each family working it out together, if they can. Obviously, it's difficult for some families. Yeah, no, I think we've taken this kind of authoritarian approach. And I think most of that stems from nostalgia, especially Especially for Jonathan Haidt, I'm sure he can't fathom what it must be like to grow up with phones and social media. But I think a lot of his advice ignores the reality.

We need to teach children how to navigate the world that's existing now and not trying to idealize a world that is no longer here. Yeah, as you say in the article you wrote, control doesn't teach resilience. Conversation does. So how do you suggest parents go about that conversation? What do you think kids really want to hear from their parents? I think the biggest is curiosity and understanding. A lot of parents approach what we're doing on social media or with online gaming is stupid or they dismiss it.

They love to blame the phones for anything. You know, if you say you have a back problem or if you say your legs hurting, they're like, it's the phone. And so I think realizing that the world is changing so fast with the rapid evolution of these technologies, just trying to understand what environment your child is growing up in and guiding them through that. If you're able to maintain that conversation with your child,

then they're more likely to come to you whenever there's a problem because they trust you. The studies have shown that when you have that authoritarian parenting style, children are more likely to rebel. I have talked to people in the tech world who are like, God, this whole social media debate is kind of passe. What about AI? Social media is going to go to the wayside anyway. What do you think about that?

I think it's unfortunate that we're moving on from social media so quickly. Clearly, we haven't resolved it. But it's true that already we've, seen between 60 and 70% of young people use AI chatbots or companions, we can draw a parallel to social media where what you're doing on that chatbot is more important than how many hours you're spending on it. Are you using them? Do you use chat GPT or Claude or any of those? I do, yeah, my last semester, I took part in an AI writing class. So it was an AI first class. Wait, how did it work? What did you guys do? We were required to use AI in all of our assignments.

The first day of class, the professor had asked how many of us had used chat GPT, and everyone raised their hands in the room. And then he asked how many of you are allowed to use it in your other classes or how many of you tell your professors you use it? And there were no hands up. The problem, once again, is not having that trust between adults and children. Building a space where we're allowed to be open and transparent about how we're using technologies like AI or social media and not being shamed for it will lead to much more productive conversations. Because in that class, we learned when to accept AI's feedback, how to use it in a moderate way. Some studies have shown that using AI for note-taking could increase engagement better than not using it at all and using it too much. It would actually reinforce your learning.

What I love about that is it's saying, yeah, use it. And then you're required to come in and talk about it and think about it and reflect on it rather than sitting and scrolling mindlessly or chatting mindlessly, like you say, creating friction and having sort of. a critical analysis of it, that seems really smart. Maybe that's what we should have done with social media. Yeah. And I think with AI, we really have to learn from our mistakes with social media, right? This is a new technology. We can still get on top of this. I guess my message to, like, policymakers would be to not wait to regulate. With social media, we saw innovation as an excuse to, like, ignore harm. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act basically exempted tech companies from taking responsibility for what others post on their platforms.

And we've seen laws being passed or being debated about exempting AI from regulation and things like that. And so I think we need to get on top of this. I would also advise parents to look around and to play with it. Because once parents get on it and they realize that it's not as dangerous as it's made out to be, they can really approach that with a bit more clarity and be more open-minded about what their children are doing online. If you're the parent and you introduce your kid to AI in obviously an age-appropriate way, kids are more likely to come to you when they encounter some weird content about AI. Forming that trust relationship with your child, I think, is really one of the most important things you can do, whether it's AI or social media.

That was Maximilian Milovidov. He's a freshman at Columbia University and a member of TikTok's Youth Council. So I wanted to know what Jonathan Haidt made of Maximilian's critique of the anxious generation. So first of all, I've been a college professor since 1995, and I've been talking with young adults often. And what are they advocating for? They're advocating for design changes, and they're advocating for protecting the kids from these dangers. So we are trying to listen to Gen Zee. Now, what Maximilian is right about is when I wrote The Anxious Generation, I was trying to decide, am I going to try to reach teens and adults?

And I decided, you know what? No, we need legislative and policy change. immediately. So I wrote The Anxious Generation for adults, and that seems to be getting through to adults. I think I also, you know, get confused by, but also intrigued by some of the controversy around your original research, you know. Oh, let's go. Please. Let's do it. Yeah, let's do it. So there are some researchers who say, you know, sure, there are links between social media and rising rates of anxiety and depression and young people, but we can't prove that social media. caused it. So where are you in terms of evidence that you're putting forward now? Okay. You know,

in social sciences, you have to operationalize a problem before you can solve. You have to structure it and say, here's what we mean. And now let's look at the evidence. And somehow, the problem got operationalized around two bodies of academic work. One is the correlational studies, where we all agree there are correlations. Heavy users are doing worse. But we fight over, is the correlation big enough to matter? And the other is these experiments. They're little toy model. is you get college students to quit social media for a week. For a week. Yeah.

And you see, like, do they get less depressed when they quit for a week or two? And the answer is yes, but it's a small effect. And then we fight over whether it's big enough. But what Zach Rauch and I have done, we have this major review paper that will be in the World Happiness Report. What we did is we said, look, let's look at all the evidence, not just these two little things. And here's the way to think about it. Who really knows what's going on? Who has the best seat in the house?

Who can see what's happening? There's only two groups. One is the kids themselves. They are in it all the time. They know what they've seen. They know how it makes them feel. And when we survey them, we find that a quarter of like, oh, it's 30% or so of the girls, say, this has harmed my mental health. The kids themselves are reporting.

This is harming my mental health. This is reducing my sleep. This is harming my self-confidence. Now, that's not a correlation. Those are direct reports. 10,000 a month on Snapchat alone are getting sexorted every year, at least in 2022. We know that that's what the number was. So the kids themselves, they have the best seat in the house, and they're saying that this is hurting us.

There's only one other group that knows what's going on, and that is meta and the platforms. They do a lot of research, and they think they're harming kids. They don't say it publicly, but all the documents that have come out, all the leaks. So, you know, if you want to put all your faith in experiments, I mean, that is the only one who actually has all the data. They have what's called user log data. They know exactly what was seen. So those are the two with the best view. And they say this is hurting kids. I mean, I guess it's interesting because I've talked to researchers like Candace Odgers. She's a psychologist who studies adolescent mental health. And she actually, you know, looks at data gathered from teens' actual phones. And she agrees

with so much of what you've said. But she also argues that the scary story, the anxiety, is being oversold and that teens are actually more resilient than we are giving them credit for. What do you think about that? Well, of course, that's always true. And, you know, Candace will sometimes say, well, it's not affecting everyone or it's not causing massive changes in the brain. So, sure, if you want to treat it as though it's going to harm everyone, like, no, it's not going to harm everyone.

But again, I'm a social scientist. I see a giant change at a mass level that began in 2012. It began in multiple countries at the same time. We have not just correlational evidence, but experimental evidence, that when people get off social media, they get happy, especially if they're adolescents and especially if they're girls. So, you know, Candice and I look at the same data and we disagree about the interpretation. And there are methodological reasons why we differ. I'm concerned that we're ignoring some of the very important reasons why this has also happened when it comes to finding the solution. So, for example, I think a lot of parents, you know, they want to follow these rules that you have.

But they, child care is incredibly expensive. After school programs have been cut. They live far away from their family. Work is more demanding than ever. How do we support parents and kids so that they can do all the other things you want them to do when they're not on their phones? Yeah. So I think part of what you're getting at is that we've all discovered. that a touchscreen device is an incredible pacifier.

If you just give them the phone, everyone's happy. But here's the thing that people need to understand. If the child does not learn to be bored, boredom is a stimulus to go find something to do. But once you hand a touchscreen device, the touchscreen device gives quick dopamine. And once the kid is accustomed to quick dopamine, then you have to keep doing it. Otherwise, they'll throw a tantrum. Okay, but I have been in the supermarket with a screaming toddler and given the kid the phone and not felt great about it and definitely got inside eye from other people. I think there is something where parents would say, but the whole structural system is broken. There is no support. What do you want me to do? Exactly. That's what I was trying to do with the anxious generation, was to say it's not your fault. If, you know, if one person is doing something bad, that person might be a bad person. But a basic lesson in social psychology is that if everyone is doing something bad in a situation, it's a bad situation.

And that's what we have. And that's because these devices have been stuffed down our throats, pushed into schools. Even if you keep your kid off at home, they're spending the whole day on a goddamn iPad or Chromebook. So the biggest structural thing we can do. And this has a huge equity effect is phone-free schools and then device-free schools. Get rid of all of the one-to-one devices. The rich kids generally have more controls on them at home, whereas the poor kids generally don't. Poor kids, low SES, they're on about two hours a day more than the well-female.

to your kids. I mean, I've also been the parent who's gotten the alert that once again, my child's school is in lockdown or that kids are locked out of the building because they think there's an active shooter inside. And I'm glad my kid has a phone. I would, I mean, how do we get as much attention on all the ancillary social issues that come along with the phone issues that are making kids extremely anxious for many reasons beyond their social media? Yep. Well, so first of all, all of the parental concerns would be satisfied by a flip phone or a basic phone, and that has fewer of the problems. It's not as addictive. You could still reach your kid if they had a flip phone as opposed to a smartphone. But here's the thing about that concern. If there is a school shooter, the last thing you want is every kid pulling out their phone, calling home, crying, you know, or filming, what you want is for the kids to do what they drilled to do, to be quiet, to follow directions, to be alert if the situation changes. So the experts say smartphones make things worse, not better.

So where does media literacy fit into this? Digital literacy. I mean, kids don't learn to use tech well by never touching it. So how should we teach competence, not just avoidance? Well, first, digital literacy is generally the thing put forward by the tech companies as the alternative to regulation. They say, no, no, that's too hardcore to ban. and teach kids to use it better.

Well, how's that going? I can't say that none of these programs work, but we have a highly addictive substance here. It's addictive in the literal dopamine sense for many kids, but it's addictive in a unique way, which is socially for almost all the kids. In a minute, Jonathan Haidt weighs in on where things are headed when it comes to kids, screens, and AI.

Plus, a conversation with Catherine Price, his co-author of a new book called The Amateur, amazing generation, which is all about getting kids to have more fun. On the show today, kids and screens. I'm Manus Shumeroti, and you're listening to The TED Radio Hour from NPR. We'll be right back. It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Manushe Zamoroti.

Today on the show, kids and screens and social media. And we were just talking to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who thinks we need to keep kids off social media entirely, at least until the age of 16. For him, there is no middle ground on that rule, even in the classroom. The effort to teach kids to properly use addictive substances, I don't know how well that's going to work, and I don't see much evidence of it working.

If you can show me a school where kids had a digital literacy or digital citizenship course, and then everything went pretty well, then I will change my tune, but I don't think that's possible, and I've never heard of it. Well, I have definitely heard from teachers who have said, you know, they use all sorts of funny TikTok videos or Instagram videos. Like there's so many amazing things on these platforms, whether that's nature or science experiments. There's also a real movement to get teachers using AI as a helper and not as a companion. I think, you know, we see this school by school, teacher by teacher, classroom by classroom.

but I would also and love to see a sort of more codified way of here's how we know these tech tools can actually be used as tools rather than taskmasters. Of course they can be used as tools, and we've been sold that promise for 20 or 30 years now, and occasionally it's been true. I think Khan Academy is great, but most of the time I think it has not panned out the way that they said. because anything that's delivered on a multifunction entertainment device is going to mostly end up with short videos. The kids are used to using iPads and computers. They have them at home. They use them at home.

If you put one on a kid's desk, it's going to end up at TikTok or YouTube shorts. Now, stories are good. Long videos are good. There's a role for long videos in class. I'm not saying teachers shouldn't show videos. I'm not saying they shouldn't show YouTube videos. But I am saying they shouldn't show YouTube shorts or TV.

TikTok or Instagram Reels. I think the short-form videos seem to be the most devastating for kids developing abilities to pay attention. That's what my students tell me, to quote one of my students, yeah, I take out a book, I read a sentence, I get bored, I go to TikTok. So bands, age limits, these are ways of drawing a boundary around social media, as we've known it. But the ground is shifting again, John. Like kids aren't just on feeds anymore. They are interacting with AI. There's chatbots, AI friends, algorithmically. generated video, more really personalized content. Yeah. What do we do about AI? Yeah. So this is probably going to be 10 times more harmful. This is, it's horrible that the social media companies hacked kids' attention and took

most of it, literally most of their attention. That's horrible. That should be the crime of the century. But what's about to happen and what's begun to happen in 2025 and 26 is now they're hacking attachment. Kids are lonely. We're mammals who are seeking connection. We're born into this world looking for that one stable thing, the caretaker. That's what the attachment system is about. And we parents, we are mesmerized. We become attached. We fall in love with our baby. And we engage in what's called serve and return interactions. You know, you make a face, she smiles. It brightens

your heart. You know, you make another face, she laughs. Those sort of things. That's what the baby's brain needs to do to tune up. And with thousands and thousands of those experiences, you develop internal working models of attachment where you trust your mother or your father. And then those are the basis for your later friendships and especially your later romantic relationships. All of that is now at risk. All of that may not happen for future generations. So if you're updating your four norms, what's the AI norm? So we're just beginning to, we're just beginning to formulate that. I think, I mean, the simplest thing, I guess, be the fifth norm, is no AI companions for minors.

They, you know, of course, chat GPD can become a companion. I'm not saying they can never use chat GPT, but obviously character AI or any AI that acts like a friend that says, I understand you, I'm here for you. Any of that is attachment hacking. And while someday that might be proven safe, I doubt it. And I think the mistake we made with social media was to say, how about you guys get to do a giant test on all of the world's kids. You get to roll out a new technology, changed childhood, and it'll take us 20 years for the researchers to fight it out about whether it's harmful or

not, and by then it's too late. So that's what we did with social media. We're about to do that with AI. But it's going to be much quicker and much more devastating because we're talking about severe reductions in attachment. So I'm extremely alarmed about AI, but my personal strategy here is we're so close to winning on social media. On social media, we understand it. We have decades of data. We know exactly what's going on. We see the harms. And there's a lot of legislation around the world. So if we can win on social media this year, 2026, then I think we have a chance to actually regulate AI and to put on some limits. But we don't have five years to get the social media thing. We have to finish this in 2026. Where do you see these lawsuits?

these bands in various countries, getting phones out of schools. Like, what is the end goal? What, what can, what do you realistically think we can achieve? Yeah. Well, when I started this in 2024, I didn't know what we could achieve, but because mothers around the world stood up immediately and started acting, we actually got phones out of schools in, in most states, in 2025. We are now getting age limits in countries around the world. Australia started it in and there's one into effect in December. And in January, five or six European countries committed to doing it, France being first, followed. It looks like now Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Indonesia, their law goes into effect soon.

And so I think we're going to see massive change around the world. People realizing that digital tech is deforming children. It's useful stuff for adults, but children need to do hard things. Children should not be talking with strange men on anonymous platforms. And so I think we're going to see a global change in 2026 around kids and technology. Actually, we can win. It has felt as though it's just a digital title wave overwhelming us. But what we're discovering is, especially when these companies have angered the mothers of the world, we actually can push back.

We can get laws enacted. And there is a chance that we can get some. balance back into our lives. That was social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He is the author of The Anxious Generation. He is also written a graphic novel called The Amazing Generation. The idea is to bring some of his concerns about screens and social media directly to kids, younger ones.

His co-author is Catherine Price. Initially, the assumption was that it would be The Anxious Generation written for young readers. Young Reader's edition of the Anxious Generation. And what I tried to bring to that is, okay, well, how do we translate that into a concept and language that actually kids get excited about? Catherine's previous book was The Power of Fun. Together, they came up with a plan to make the topic of getting off screens more intriguing. So we framed it as this battle between the tech wizards who want to control people's time and attention

and essentially steal their lives from them from under their noses versus these young people who are choosing a different path. These wizards, these technology wizards, created these magical stones that they convinced all of us to pick up at some point and just said that our lives were going to be better. We were going to get more friendship and more freedom and more fun if we all picked up these stones. And so we all did.

And before long, everybody was just staring at these stones all day long. And then the second part of the story is that there are, are a number of young people, a growing number of young people who have recognized what is happening and have decided I actually don't want to live that way. And so they are in our telling and also in reality, they are the brave group of young people who are actually saying, no, no, no, no, I want to choose a different path. And I think one of the reasons that it's working, because you know, we were very worried about this being cheesy. But I think is that it's true. We are all engaged in this battle for our attention. I think one of the frustrations I have had,

is that we say to kids, like, put down your phone. Oh, my gosh, you're on your phone so much, but we don't give them many suggestions as to what to do once they put down their phone. And that's what I loved about you're bringing your fun mentality into this book. So let's talk about that. Yeah, so the personal story on my end is I'd written how to break up with your phone. You know, it came out in 2018, very much to solve my own problem because I had noticed I was spending more time on my phone than I was. wanted to, especially when I was with my daughter, who was then a baby. But then I ended up uncovering this other problem, which is that I reclaimed time from my devices. I realized, oh my goodness, I need to have something to fill this time. And I ended up signing up for a guitar class because I had a guitar.

I'd always said I wanted to learn it, but I'd never gotten around to it. And that opened up this entire community of people to me, but it also led to me having this feeling, this kind of magically energetic feeling. That sounds so woo-woo. I don't mean it that way. No, I get it. Just this like joy and this release and this sense of freedom and connection and happiness all rolled into one hour and a half class where, you know, it was a bunch of other parents and me strumming basic chords on the guitar and trying to sing like the theme song to Moana. Like we were not trying to be professionals. And it was this feeling of just buoyancy that you probably hear in my voice.

Like it stayed with me for days after this class. And I got very curious about what is that feeling that I am experiencing. scene. And it took me this embarrassingly long time to recognize that the best word to describe that feeling was fun. So what is this feeling that we call fun? Here's Catherine Price on the TED stage. Well, when people tell me their stories about fun, it's really interesting because the details are all different and often quite mundane, but the energy running through them is the same. And there are three factors that are consistently present. And those three factors are playfulness, connection, and flow. So by playfulness, I do not mean you have to play game.

or God forbid, make believe. I just mean having a lighthearted attitude of doing things for the sake of doing them and not caring too much about the outcome, letting go of perfectionism. When we have fun, our guard is down and we're not taking ourselves too seriously. Connection refers to the feeling of having a special shared experience.

And I do think it's possible in some circumstances to have fun alone, and for this feeling of connection to be with yourself or the surroundings or the activity, but in the majority of stories that people tell me about their peak fun memories, another person is involved, and that's true even for introverts.

And then flow is the state where we are so engaged and focused on whatever we're doing that we can even lose track of time. You can think about an athlete in the middle of a game or like a musician playing a piece of music. It's when we're in the zone. It's possible to be in flow and not have fun, like if you're arguing, but you cannot have fun if you're not in flow.

Just to bring it back to your children's book and The Amazing Generation, I feel like if you'd had this conversation with me in the 1970s or 80s, I would have been like, what are you talking about? But the fact that we have to talk about having fun and deciphering what is true or fake fun, tell me why you think we need to do that and how you do explain it to kids. Yeah, so we use the word fun all the time in all of these different contexts that don't tap into that. that deep, joyful feeling. So fake fun is the term I came up with to refer to the feeling we get from these other activities, the stuff that's marketed to us as fun, quote unquote, but doesn't produce playful connected flow. In the book, we talk about how the tech wizards promised people of all ages, as I alluded to earlier, that you would have more friendship, you know, connect with your friends, that's part of many of those companies' mission statements, more freedom and more

fun. But if you really think about it critically, it's not real friendship. Having, you know, a follower is not the same as having a friend. It's much more rewarding to be in person with your friends and to have real relationships. And it's not really that free to be tethered to an app. And then it's not fun. I mean, based on the research I'd done for my adult book, that scrolling through social media is not, even if you're like laughing at a meme, it's not actually fun. Like, fun happens in real life with other people. So we really wanted to draw this distinction for kids so they could see what's happening more clearly. And I've been actually really impressed by how thoughtful and astute kids have been at very young ages. And just as one concrete

example, I have a friend whose kid was a variant of Fortnite. I think he played, he said he played 650 hours in a year. He read the book and then he's fifth grade. He said to his mom, you know, I really like Fortnite, but I'm not sure it's a hobby. I want to have more hobbies. And now they're going regularly to the climbing gym as a family. His mom said she feels like now they're on the same side for the first time about screens. And it's not that he doesn't ever play Fortnite or he doesn't want to be on screens, but he actually has been able to, you know, stop using it without a conflict and actually ask for help in finding more real hobbies. That one just gave me chills. I just thought that was so cool. So let's talk us through, how do we get more fun in our lives? Because I do think part of

the appeal, obviously, of screens is the convenience. It is, it's inertia, right? Sure is easier to look at my phone, then schlep, get my coat on my hat, drive somewhere, deal with like, you know, finding a parking spot. Yeah, pants. Exactly. That alone. But you have

ideas about how to get more fun into your life. So when I think about how do you have fun, I think of it from two different angles. I think about it from a spontaneous fun side and then I think of it from engineered fun. So the spontaneous side

is basically opening yourself up to and noticing opportunities for little bits of playfulness and connection and float. I remember a guy telling me a story about his memory of true fun. He was sitting at a park bench with his nephew and they were just trying to catch leaves as they fell off a tree. Like they did that for you. He said it an hour and it was so fun and they were giggling. And I was like, oh my God, I love that so much because you just gave me, it's like metaphorically exactly what I'm talking about. There's opportunities for fun floating in the air all the time. We just have to be better about reaching out and grabbing them.

So that's kind of like spontaneous fun. On the other side, it's hard to have fun. It's much harder because we are so busy. So the other side is to actually say, okay, let's actually do, this is where I'm going to get dorky, an analysis of like what I call your fun magnets. Fun magnets are a term, it's a term I came up with to help people figure out what to prioritize in your very busy,

life. So they are the people, the places, and the activities that typically bring a feeling of fun to you. So it's like a friend you always have fun with when you're together or it's a setting where you're really fun. She's really fun. Yeah. Or like a setting like for me, it's like summer camps or lakes. Those are two fun magnets for me. Like a setting where you're like, oh, I consistently have fun when I'm in that context. And then activities, obviously, are activities that often lead to you having fun. And the reason I that's really useful for adults is that our lives are very busy. But if you know what your fun magnets are, you actually can carve out time for them in your schedule. It doesn't guarantee that you're going to have fun. But if you're like, all right, I'm going to prioritize, in my case, for example,

I'm going to prioritize playing music with friends because I know that that is a fun magnet for me. So you can use your fun magnets to carve out time and be a little bit more specific about how you are spending your limited leisure time in hopes that it will lead to true fun. But at very least, you're probably going to end up with some playfulness or connection or flow. And you're going to feel a lot better than if you had spent that time scrolling on the couch or answering your work email. So get off the phone. Go find your fun magnet. Get out of here.

That was Catherine Price. She's the co-author of The Amazing Generation, your guide to fun and freedom in a screen-filled world. You can see her full talk at ted.com. Thanks so much for listening to our show this week. If you are a subscriber of NPR Plus, you can hear more of my conversation with Maximilian Milovidov in our bonus episode that's coming out next week. This episode was produced by Katie Montalione, Phoebe Lett, and Fiona Gehrin. It was edited by Sanaz Meshkenspur, James Delahousie, and me. Our production staff at NPR also includes Matthew Cloutier, Harsha Nihada, and Rachel Faulkner White.

Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Our audio engineers were Damian Herring. And David Greenberg. Our theme music was written by Romteen Arablewee. Our partners at TED are Chris Anderson, Roxanne Highlash, and Danielle Bella Rzeau. I'm Manushe Zamorodi, and you have been listening to the TED Radio Hour from NPR.