All researchers and professionals who work with and on the internet agree that much has changed since it became ubiquitous among adults, children, and adolescents. But they diverge in two fields: are smartphones and social networks a threat simply because they exist and we need to regulate their use, or does any technology have an impact on our culture, and this impact can make behavior fundamentally dysfunctional? Technology is agnostic, what we do – or do not do – with it is what matters.
Especially after the publication of the book ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’ by Jonathan Haidt, alarmism spread among parents and educators who found a culprit for the ills affecting Generation Z (1997 to 2009) and Alpha (2010 to 2024): smartphones. According to Haidt, the mere presence of smartphones in a location, with indiscriminate use of social media, is responsible for the increase in psychiatric illnesses. To support his conclusions, he presents data from the American College Health Association: since 2008, the number of teenagers with some mental health diagnosis has increased from 20% to 45%.
As a digital world researcher and professor, I look at these numbers with suspicion because children throughout history have grown up under greater threats than the presence of a smartphone. And we don’t even need to travel to the past to look for these children: after the attacks of October 7, 2023, in Israel, among the children and adolescents directly affected, the prevalence of mental disorders increased from 17% to 30%.
I’m worried that, in Brazil and worldwide, we are creating laws with the intention of banning smartphone access based on a moral panic that, apparently, does not withstand the slightest scrutiny. Nevertheless, the digital world has had an impact on our lives, that is undeniable, but allow me to submit an alternative hypothesis: that it is our culture, aided by smartphones, that is changing the behavior of teenagers.
Smartphones, which surprisingly have existed since 1994, only became popular from 2007 onwards, with the emergence of the first iPhone. If they have been around for so long, why are teenagers only now feeling their impact? Haidt blames social networks and fast mobile internet. I and other researchers, like the Italian Alberto Acerbi, have a different opinion: it’s the culture, stupid!
With smartphones, anyone can become a journalist or, in current jargon, a ‘content producer.’ This means that no matter where we are or what we do, there will always be a malevolent, red Sauron eye watching over us. This would be okay if surveillance were the only problem. The issue is that this all-seeing eye also cancels, humiliates, and shames.
Imagine a teenager trying to win over his first girlfriend: there’s always the risk of rejection. This is normal, but today, someone trying to approach another person, online or in real life, runs the risk of being humiliated and canceled in the public square of the internet. A simple print screen can make an 18-year-old boy the subject of ridicule in every corner of the world.
The best content ever produced by this cancel culture frenzy brought by the internet is Monica Lewinsky’s TED Talk. Yes, the same, “I did not have sex with that woman”. In it, the most hated woman of 1997 talks not only about her own, but various experiences of people who have been metaphorically lynched in the digital public square. And the solution to this? A new culture, a culture of tolerance and grace on the internet, in which things like the previous screenshot would be ignored by us, a “déclassé”, vulgar behavior. And the mental health crisis? Are teenagers really sicker? According to the World Economic Forum, teenagers are delaying their entry into the adult world. My hypothesis is that, out of fear of humiliation and cancellation, teenagers have not been getting their driver’s licenses, not going out in public, and remaining infantilized for a longer time. For the prospect of stepping out into the world, whether digital or real, poses a real social risk for which their minds are not prepared. In fact, no one is. What surprises me most about the prohibitive frenzy, both by Haidt and Brazilian and foreign lawmakers, who have chosen the smartphone as the source of all evils, is that Haidt has written several times about how a culture that considers public humiliation a hobby cannot be healthy. He refers to this scheme, present in cognitive-behavioral therapy theory, as mind-reading, and we are supposed to assume the worst intentions of other people.To overcome this behavior, this culture we have today – which I must agree, is highly dysfunctional – the same Haidt suggests a more generous posture that assumes good intentions in the actions and words of others. This approach helps reduce unnecessary conflicts and promotes healthier interactions, especially in polarized environments. By challenging these automatic assumptions, we make our eyes more empathetic and tolerant, as well as build more rational communication. On the internet and in real life, without needing to ban anything.
Lilian Carvalho is a PhD in Marketing and coordinator of the Center for Digital Marketing Studies at FGV/EAESP
