What A Day - The Great Social Media Reckoning

Episode Date: March 26, 2026

On Wednesday, a California jury found Meta and YouTube each liable for harming the well-being of a young user who had sued the two companies. The plaintiff argued that the products had negatively impacted her mental health. This verdict follows a similar decision made by a jury in New Mexico earlier this week. Both decisions are part of a massive shift in how Americans are thinking about social media. New polling from Edison Research at SSRS – a major data and research firm – found that 57% of Americans ages 18 and older would support a social media ban for anyone under 16. But civil liberties groups, like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, are crying foul, arguing that curtailing speech and content on social media is curtailing speech, period. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business and author of "The Anxious Generation," joins the show to discuss what stronger regulations on young people could mean for all social media users.And in headlines, a Democrat flips the Florida state legislative seat in the district that contains Mar-a-Lago, new polling shows that a majority of Americans think that the U.S. military has gone too far in attacking Iran, and a report says the White House turned down Elon Musk's offer to pay TSA agents.Show Notes: Check out Jonathan's book – www.anxiousgeneration.com/book Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Thursday, March 26th. I'm Jane Koston, and this is what a day? A show that does not like where First Lady Melania Trump is going with all this. Here she is at an AI education summit at the White House on Wednesday after walking out with her new bestie. A humanoid robot named Figure Zero-3. Imagine a humanoid educator named Plato. access to the classical studies is now instantaneous. Literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history. Humanity's entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home.

No thank you. I'm good without humanoid teacher robots, especially ones named Plato. On today's show, President Donald Trump makes a surprise decision and tells Elon Musk he doesn't want his money. And Trump is reportedly spending each morning watching a highlight reel of the war edited for his attention span. But let's start with social media. We told you on yesterday's show that a jury found that met a violated consumer protection laws in New Mexico, misleading users and putting children's safety at risk.

And on Wednesday, the hits just kept coming for the tech company that owns Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook. A California jury found META and YouTube each liable for harming the well-being of a young user who had sued the two companies alongside TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat. The plaintiff argued that their products had harmed her mental health. TikTok and Snap settled before the trial began. Meta must now pay the plaintiff $4.2 million in damages, and YouTube, which is owned by Google, must pay $1.8 million.

In response to the verdict, a meta spokesperson told the New York Times, quote, we respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options. A Google spokesperson told the Times quote, this case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site. But these verdicts are part of a massive shift in how Americans are thinking about social media. Polling released on Wednesday by Edison Research at SSRS,

a major data and research firm, found that 57% of Americans, ages 18 and older, would support a social media ban for anyone under 16. And Congress is finally noticing. Here's Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin speaking about the New Mexico ruling at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. This ought to be a call to action to this committee to respond on the Senate floor and actually legislate for a change instead of what we do day after day, legislate for the benefit of these children and our grandchildren. But civil liberties groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression are crying foul, arguing that curtailing speech,

and content on social media is curtailing speech, period. Jonathan Haidt is an author and social psychologist at New York University's Stern School of Business. He has been sounding the alarm about social media's impact on young people for years, but I had some questions about what stronger regulations on young people could mean for all social media users. Jonathan, welcome to what today. Thanks very much, Jane. Great to be here.

There were two major cases this week where juries found meta liable for harm to children who use their platforms. To start off, what was the question at the center of the lawsuit in California? So the background that's crucial to understand here is that any normal consumer product, a company that makes money off of kids, if their product has defective design and it hurts kids, they can be sued for damage. That's just common sense. That's tort law. That's everything. But in the U.S., because of Section 230, the Communications Decency Act, which gives platforms protection from being sued for what someone else posted, they,

that has been interpreted so broadly as to give them blanket immunity so that they can't be sued for whatever a kid sees on the platform, for whatever happens to the kid. And that's why here we are, you know, 20 years into the social media era, and these companies have never, ever faced a jury. They've never been held responsible. They've never had to pay damages for what they've done to, I believe, literally millions of kids. And so that's the background. So what happened was a group of lawyers worked very hard to come up with a very specific claim. They were looking for young people who weren't harmed because somebody posted something that upset them or told them to kill themselves. They were harmed because the platform was designed such that they were addicted, and that was

what the case turned on. Was it really addiction? Or was it just, yeah, you know, she used it a lot, like, you know, I eat too much chocolate or whatever. And the jury had to decide, was, was Kaylee addicted? Kaley is the one plaintiff in this one particular case. Was she addicted? They had to decide, did they know that it was addictive? Did they fail to protect or take protective actions? So it was a series of questions like that. And the jury decided that, yes, on all these questions. Meta and Google were both, you can't say guilty,

but the jury found for the plaintiff that the platform's predictive, they knew it, there's all kinds of internal memos showing it, and therefore they are partly responsible for the various mental disorders that she developed due to her addiction. Now, we're going to get to the Section 230

conversation in a minute because I am one of Section 230's greatest defenders. I love Section 230, greatest law ever. I'd love to talk about with. All right. But you've long been campaigning against the use of social media by young people, and you've written about how other countries like Australia are taking action on that front. What do you think these rulings against meta, against YouTube, Snap, which on Snapchat

and TikTok had already settled with the California plaintiff? What do you think those rulings mean for both these companies and for efforts to limit social media access by children? So I think the meaning is a gigantic reversal of the burden of proof. So the way this all happened was, you know, the early internet in the 90s was amazing. And so we start with this early open internet. People get very idealistic. We all thought, oh, it's open.

People are being creative. They're putting content out just from the goodness of their heart. So we all start a very positive. And of course, free speech advocates, libertarians are thrilled by the possibility of this, this, you know, utopian dream of a place where people can just create their own societies. So we start off that way. and anybody wants to argue, no, wait a second, wait, you know, we shouldn't be letting kids do this. The burden of proof was entirely on them. So that was going on for really 20 years was the idea that, you know, people like me, researchers who are saying that there's a problem or Gene Twangy, we have to climb mountains to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was harmful.

And I think what we're seeing now is now that almost everybody sees it, almost everybody who's a parent, who has teenagers, has seen what these platforms do, if not to their own. child into their kids' friends. So what we've seen in the last year is a huge reversal where it was like the Emperor's New Clothes moment, where it's like everyone sees that everyone sees that this is harming kids at an industrial scale. So I think we're in a new world, and now the burden of proof is shifted. And new technologies like AI, I think people have been more receptive to the idea that we shouldn't just put chatbots and teddy bears and give them to kids and then we'll wait 20 years and see what happens to them. I think we're going to see a lot more pressure for companies to prove that their product is safe before they're spread out to all of humanity.

Let's back up a bit, because I want to get at your bigger point about the work that you do. What do you think social media is doing to young people? There are many, many different avenues of harm. So the most basic is just that it pushes everything else up because it is addictive. It tends to take up. The average kid watches five hours of social media a day, if you include YouTube, most of that is short videos. So just by pushing out sleep, sunshine, exercise, time with friends, eye contact, just by pushing that out for all of the kids.

I mean, most of the kids in the country, the average is five hours, a lot are around seven hours a day. And then there's lots of other activities that bring it up to around 12 for a lot of kids. So that's the simplest one. That's undeniable, that if you're spending five to ten hours a day on this stuff, it pushes everything else out, including sleep. And then there's the area that all the academic debate is about is, does heavy use of this cause depression and anxiety, or is it just correlated? So that's where almost all the debate is among the researchers.

But there are so many other harms that we're not even talking about. So that's why it's so important to have an age limit. This is not even close. The question of should 11-year-olds be on Instagram? This is not close. I want to go back actually to Section 230, which you mentioned. And I think that one of the challenges is, is that Section 230 does a lot of different things.

It's not about platforms or websites. It's about third-party content. It provides social media companies with legal cover, but it also provides you, Jonathan, with legal cover. You have a substack called After Babel, and you could not be sued if someone came into the comments of your substack and threatened to kill someone else.

I'm totally down with that. We totally agree. I love it, love it. So I think the challenge is, and I'm interested because you're sounding on board, with my good friend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the challenge is that among the aspects of the California suit was aspects of these sites like Infinite Scroll

or algorithms that make websites more appealing or they start pushing things to you. Now, if you talk to libertarians and free speech advocates, they say like Section 230 is critical to protecting not just the rights of Internet users, but basically how the Internet functions. What do you think should happen to Section 230, given that Congress wasn't ready for algorithms or infinite scroll and given all of these lawsuits? Right. So I think that's very well framed because this was created at a time when we thought the Internet was a big bulletin board.

I think, look, you and I agree, Section 230 in its original design was essential. We can't get rid of Section 230 and not replace it with a different version of Section 230. So maybe you know the history better than I do. As I understand it, as the internet developed, and then the courts had to decide, does Section 230 offer protection for this case, this case, this case, this case, this case. It was interpreted very, very broadly. So what I would like to see is, again, not a legal expert, so this might not be right, but what I would like to see is Congress should just specify. Here's Section 230, there's been ambiguity about how it's interpreted. We mean it to mean this.

And it does not protect you from decisions, business decisions. design decisions. Just let's get back to the original, a narrower view of the original reading. Now, something that's always been interesting to me is that it was meta that put forward a big campaign saying, yeah, we want change as a Section 230 because they were the company that was large enough

to be able to fund whatever those changes would look like. Other companies could not. Meta, in response to these suits, has said that they are going to appeal in New Mexico and that they will likely do so in California. And they have said, we have these protections, obviously, they're not fail-safe, but we do have these protections. And I believe YouTube has as well. They've also argued they're not a social media site.

In your ideal world, how would you like to see tech companies like META change their policies to protect kids moving forward? Well, I mean, something as basic as their own policies say, and Kappa, you know, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, says they shouldn't be having kids under 13. But we know that they know, I mean, this is what all the internal documents show. So I just want to ask you, do you think that Mehta's decision to go after preteens is protected by Section 230? I think that Meadow's decision to do a lot of things is not protected by Section 230. Again, because Section 230 has to do with third-party content. It does not have to do with recruiting users. Again, this is why this issue is so complicated because the rest of the Communications Seasons Act of 1996 was struck by the Supreme Court.

Section 230 was not. But again, it was written for bulletin boards. Yeah, that's right. And so you're saying, you know, if meta-enforced its actual policies, stop trying to market to preteens. But what are additional policies? Because clearly, okay, it's fine if you're 14 isn't going to work for you. I'm going to guess. Well, yeah.

So look, if these companies had been responsible all along, like, say Pinterest, Pinterest has been responsible once Bill Reddy took it over. Pinterest, like every platform, had a problem with men trying to get. get naked pictures of girls. And Bill Reddy put a stop to it by saying, you know what? How about no social features if you're under 16? Like, you cannot communicate with people. So, you know, if all the companies were like that, like they're actively looking to protect kids, they're trying to run a business.

Well, if that was the case, then I'd be much more open to the idea of, well, let's work with the companies. Let's get some design changes. But meta in particular, but also Snapchat. And to, you know, to some extent Google and certainly TikTok, all of these companies have shown over and over again, it's clear they do everything they can to get around the rules, to get to kids, to beat their competitors. And if these are the kind of predatory companies that own our children's childhood, these four or five companies literally own most of our kids'

day, even when they're not looking at the screen, they're thinking about the drama. How did it happen that these companies were given a free pass? As a psychologist, we know if you incentivize one sort of behavior and you free people from consequences, you're going to get a lot of bad behavior, and that's what happened. Jonathan, thank you so much for taking the time to join me. My pleasure, Jane. That was my conversation with Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation.

Thanks so much for listening to our show, and yes, thank you for recommending our show on social media. You can also subscribe, leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. What a Day is brought to you by Quince. These days, I am all about quality over quantity, especially in my closet.

If it's not well-made and versatile, it's just not worth it to me. That's honestly why I love Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Quince makes high-quality wardrobe staples using premium fabrics like 100% European linen, 100% silk, and organic cotton poplin. Lightweight cotton-cashmere sweat is perfect for the changing seasons, and can't miss seasonal colors and prints for spring. versatile, well-made pieces that make getting dressed simple.

Quince works directly with safe ethical factories and cuts out the middle end. You're not paying for brand markup or fancy retail stores, just quality clothing. Quince clothing is consistently rated 4.5 to 5 stars by thousands of customers. Real people wearing these pieces every day and actually loving them. I'm constantly wearing my quince sweaters, which have only gotten softer over time. Right now, go to quince.com slash wad for free shipping and 365-day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it, and you will. Now available in Canada, too.

Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash WOD for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash Wad. This episode of Wadadadaday is brought to you by Wildgrain. Wildgren is the first baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, and fresh pastas. Unlike many store-bought options, Wildgrain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce in a slow fermentation process that can be easy. easier on your belly, and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.

Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less with no thawing required. Wild grains' boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten-free box, vegan box, and a new protein box. I love chocolate chip cookies, and wild grains' giant chocolate chunk cookies are the best. Imagine having fresh bakery-quality bread, pastries, and pasta at home, without any trips to the store. And don't just take my word for it. They have over 40,000 five-star reviews and have been voted the Best Food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. For a limited time, Wildgrain is offering our listeners $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com slash wad to start your subscription today.

That's $30 off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain.com slash wad. Or you can use promo code Wad at checkout. In moments like these, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and even, easier to feel powerless. But we are neither. I'm Stacey Abrams, and on my podcast, Assembly Required, I take on each executive action, legislative battle, and breaking news moment by asking three questions. What's really happening? What can we do about it? And how do we keep going together? This is a space for clarity, strategy, and hope rooted in action, not denial. New episodes of Assembly required, drop Tuesdays.

Tune in wherever you get your podcast and on YouTube. Ah, snow melting, weather getting warmer, bird singing, but what is the first true sign of spring? Hey, Dad, I'm coming home from university. Before the kids come back from school, get the extra space they need now with access storage. Canada's number one self-storage solution. Affordable, convenient, and Canadian.

Access storage. Buy Canadian, store Canadian. Try four weeks free, plus students save 10% on continued rental. Details at access storage.ca. Here's what else we're following today. Head aligns. Joining me is Crooked's Washington correspondent, Matt Burke, to talk about the big stories. Hey, Matt.

Hey, Jane. I hear you have something that's actually fun and good to tell us about. I do. Here's part of my conversation with Emily Gregory, who just flipped a Florida State Representative seat. I encourage anyone thinking about running for office. If you think you should and people tell you you're bonkers, maybe you still should because I can tell you, nobody thought that this was within reach.

Myself, my husband, and like two friends at a kitchen table, there was like a handful of freedom fighters that were like, I don't know, I think we can just do it. Like, let's just get to do it. Gregory just flipped the Florida State House seat in a district that contains Trump's home and safe space, Mar-a-Lago. Can you tell me more about her and about this race? Yeah, it's a stunning win that no one saw coming.

She had never even run for public office before. She owns a fitness studio in Palm Beach that is focused on helping pregnant women. Her predecessor was a Republican who won the seat by 19 points in 2024. She won by more than two points running on an agenda on affordability and really focusing on local issues that residents that care about, such as, you know, property insurance reform. It's also a warning sign for Trump ahead of the midterms. There's been this trend lately that you've probably seen in which Democrats in small local races are just outperforming Republicans by a lot. On the national scale, it's not a huge deal, but it is a bell weather for how Republicans might fare in the midterms as Trump keeps doing increasingly unpopular things. Yeah, I would be very curious how many members of Mar-a-Lago voted for her.

It is also worth noting that Trump endorsed Grigger's opponent and voted by mail after spending years railing against voting by mail. He frequently votes by mail, which is this funny thing, like a level of cognitive dissonance in which he will continue to do this thing while he declares it to be the most fraudulent thing in the entire world, which it would be funnier if he wasn't trying to eliminate vote by mail. That's right. And it also just goes to show that his opinion in his own hometown doesn't really mean. matter all that much it seems, which is pretty shocking. And I mean, speaking of Trump being unpopular, there's news regarding Iran today in how the majority of Americans think that the U.S. military has gone too far in its strikes on Iran, according to the Associated Press. Meanwhile, there was a report in NBC news that's making a lot of waves about how Trump's aides reportedly show him

video montages of successful big strikes on Iran every morning. One official described the montage is, quote, stuff blowing up, which explains a lot. Stuff going boom seems to contrast with Trump's alleged peace talks with Iran over the past few days. And I keep saying alleged. And we're learning more now, and now I wouldn't really call them talks. The Iranian foreign minister also said that, quote, we do not plan on any negotiations with the United States. That came after Iran rejected a 15-point ceasefire proposal from the United States. The key points were probably focused on sanctions relief, rolling back Iran's nuclear program,

which I thought we obliterated and reopening the Strait of Hormuz oil transit route, which, for the record, again, it's closed because we went to war. Right. And Iran has a few words to say about this proposal. They offered their own counterpoints, which included the U.S. recognizing that Iran has control over the strait. And more notably, Iran is asking for reparations for war damages that the U.S. has caused in their campaign. Yeah, and I don't think Trump would give Iran wads of cash as an apology, but apparently he will do that to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, which, you know, what a time we're all living in. And those sanctions being lifted would be worth about $14 billion, which is sort of like wads of cash. But speaking of cash, Trump also apparently doesn't want cash from Elon Musk. The tech gazillionaire recently offered to cover TSA agents pay during the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, which is in its fifth week. But the White House said no, according to CBS News, because they believe the shutdown will be over soon.

Though I sneakily also suspect that they don't want TSA agents to get paid in order to make life even harder for Democrats. Yeah, this is a pretty bold thing for the White House to believe. You might remember on Tuesday there was a lot of talk about how there's going to be a deal. any moment about DHS and how Republicans and Democrats were about to sign something to reopen the government. That did not happen, and it still does not seem like Republicans and Democrats are that close to a deal. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, quote, we thought there had been some progress, but then Republicans sent us their counteroffer yesterday, and it contained nothing that had been talked about. So things don't seem to be going so great in the talks in Congress.

And at the same time, the acting TSA administrator is issuing a lot of warnings about what the shutdown could mean for airports and TSA. The shutdown has caused, quote, the highest wait times in history of airports, according to the TSA acting administrator. And those shortages could even cause airports to close. It's also worth noting that Trump doesn't seem to want to end the shutdown in the first place, according to Politico. Trump said, quote, I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it. it's really hard to negotiate when one person just doesn't want to. But Matt, I always want to hang out with you.

I will negotiate with you anytime. Thanks, Matt. Thanks for having me. And that's the news. Before we go, this week on hysteria, Aaron and Alyssa are joined by comedian Megan Galey to break down everything from ice showing up at airports to the internet losing its mind over Miss Rachel.

They also get into the Maga Dreamgirl discourse, and yes, have a conversation about polyamory because nothing says 2026 like that mix of chaos. If you want smart takes on the stories shaping culture and the ones spiraling online, don't miss it. New episodes of hysteria drop every week wherever you get your podcasts. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review.

Celebrate the fact that you're not insane. Most Americans oppose the war in Iran and thinks Trump is doing a bad job and tell your friends to listen. And if you're under reading, and not just about how new polling from Fox News found that six-fork percent of Americans thinks Trump is screwing up in Iran and 59 percent of Americans disapprove of how Trump is doing overall the lowest in either of his terms in the White House, like me. What Today is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash

subscribe. I'm Jane Koston and finally. I have the majority opinion. What a day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded in a mix by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Four. Our producer is Caitlin Plummer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, and Ethan Oberman. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of News and Politics is Adrian Hill. Our theme music is by Kyle Murdoch and Jordan Cantor. We had helped today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

In moments like these, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and even easier to feel powerless. But we are neither. I'm Stacey Abrams, and on my podcast, Assembly Required, I take on each executive action, legislative battle, and breaking news moment by asking three questions. What's really happening? What can we do about it? And how do we keep going together?

This is a space for clarity, strategy, and hope, rooted in action, not denial. New episodes of Assembly Required, drop Tuesdays. Tune in wherever you get your. podcast and on YouTube.