All researchers and professionals working with and on the internet agree that much has changed since it became ubiquitous among adults, children, and adolescents. However, they diverge into two camps: are smartphones and social media the threat simply by existing, requiring regulation of their use, or does any technology impact our culture in a way that may fundamentally make behavior dysfunctional? Technology is agnostic—what we do, or fail to do, with it is what matters.
Especially after the publication of Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Anxious Generation,” alarmism spread among parents and educators, who found a scapegoat for the troubles plaguing Gen Z (1997-2009) and Alpha (2010-2024): smartphones. Haidt argues that the mere presence of smartphones, combined with indiscriminate social media use, is responsible for the rise in psychiatric disorders. To support his conclusions, he cites data from the American College Health Association: since 2008, the number of adolescents diagnosed with a mental illness has risen from 20% to 45%.
As a researcher and professor in the digital world, I view these numbers skeptically because children throughout history have grown up under greater threats than the presence of a smartphone. We don’t even need to look to the past to find such children: after the October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel, the prevalence of mental disorders among children and adolescents with direct exposure rose from 17% to 30%.
It worries me that, in Brazil and globally, we are creating laws aimed at banning smartphones based on a moral panic that seemingly doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny. That said, the digital world has undeniably impacted our lives, but allow me to propose an alternative hypothesis: it’s our culture, aided by smartphones, that is changing adolescent behavior.
Smartphones, which surprisingly have existed since 1994, only became popular in 2007 with the first iPhone. If they’ve been around for so long, why are adolescents only now feeling their impact? Haidt blames social media and fast mobile internet. I and other researchers, like Italian scholar Alberto Acerbi, have a different take: it’s the culture, stupid!
With smartphones, anyone can become a journalist or, in today’s jargon, a ‘content creator.’ This means no matter where we are or what we do, there’s always a Sauron-like eye, evil and red, watching us. This might be fine if surveillance were the only issue. The problem is this all-seeing eye also cancels, humiliates, and shames.
Imagine a teenager trying to win over their first girlfriend: there’s always the risk of rejection. That’s normal, but today, anyone trying to approach someone else—online or in real life—risks being humiliated and canceled in the public square of the internet. A simple screenshot can make an 18-year-old boy a laughingstock across the globe.
The best content ever produced by this cancel-craze the internet has amplified is Monica Lewinsky’s TED Talk. Yes, that one, “I did not have sex with that woman”. In it, the most hated woman of 1997 speaks not just about her own but also numerous experiences of people who were metaphorically lynched in the digital public square. The solution? A new culture—one of tolerance and grace online, where things like the aforementioned screenshot would be dismissed as déclassé, vulgar.
And the mental health crisis? Are teenagers truly sicker? According to the World Economic Forum, adolescents are delaying their entry into adulthood.
My hypothesis is that, out of fear of humiliation and cancellation, teenagers are not getting driver’s licenses, avoiding public outings, and remaining infantilized for longer. The prospect of stepping into the world—whether digital or real—presents a real social risk for which their minds are unprepared. In truth, no one is.
What surprises me most about the prohibitive zeal—whether from Haidt or Brazilian and foreign legislators who have deemed smartphones the root of all evil—is that Haidt has written repeatedly about how a culture that treats public humiliation as a hobby cannot be healthy. In cognitive-behavioral therapy theory, he calls this mindset “mind-reading,” where we assume the worst intentions in others.
To overcome this behavior—this highly dysfunctional culture we have today, which I must agree is broken—Haidt himself suggests adopting a more generous stance, assuming good intentions in others’ words and actions. This approach reduces unnecessary conflicts and fosters healthier interactions, especially in polarized environments. By challenging these automatic assumptions, we make our eyes more empathetic and tolerant, fostering more rational communication. Online and offline, without needing to ban anything.
Lilian Carvalho holds a Ph.D. in Marketing and is the coordinator of the Center for Digital Marketing Studies at FGV/EAESP.
