For context, young people's digital environments matter a lot to me, both as a parent (DS1, 19; DS2, 15) and as someone who works in this research area, so I care about balance over alarm. I thought the moderator did a solid job managing the webinar and posed a wide range of the questions posted (including my own). The limitation with this type of structured Q&A is the format: the speaker controls the pace and framing, tougher or more critical questions get pivoted, and there’s no opportunity for follow-ups. That risks an echo chamber rather than a genuine exchange: great for monologue; less great for scrutiny or balance.
I want to address Haidt's response to my question.
My question as posted above:
Your work often presents young people as passive victims of digital harm and relies on selective anecdotes and interpretations of data that confuse correlation with causation. At the same time, your work largely overlooks children's rights to agency, autonomy, and participation, particularly in the context of digital spaces. While safety is, of course, a key right, how do you respond to concerns that your framing overemphasises protection in a way that silences young people’s voices, ignores their evolving capacities, and reduces their digital lives to something adults must control, rather than navigate with them?
[Text in bold read out by the moderator during webinar]
Haidt’s answer:
I appreciate the sentiment, and there is a… in the US, we have a very strong libertarian sentiment, um. That, you know, there shouldn't be restraints, kids should be able to do whatever they want, but we don't actually believe that about kids. We do believe that about adults.
Now first, to be clear. What I'm advocating is not that they not have the internet. Um, I'm often told, like, oh, you know, thank God for social media, it's such an outlet. For creativity, okay, let's examine that. Really? It makes them creative? Actually, kids who are always being interrupted are actually not very creative. There's evidence that creativity is dropping.
Oh, it's such an important thing for connection. Really? Kids used to actually have friends and not be depressed. Now they have fewer friends, they spend less time with other kids, they're not connecting, they're on screens all day long.
So, all of the supposed benefits, I keep looking, people keep telling me about these benefits. You know, the average child is on social media 5 hours a day. 5 hours a day. What are the benefits of that? Connection, creativity. Political expression? They still have the rest of the internet. They can write whatever they want and put it up on a blog. They can have their own Substack, they can send letters to the editor.
The internet gives kids a million ways to find information, find other people, connect with people. Do big things, create a website. They can do all that.
What I'm talking about is a few companies that are worth literally trillions of dollars. We don't pay them any money. How'd they get that trillion dollars? By selling our children's attention. They grab all of it from many kids, literally all, everything that's not nailed down, is taken by these companies, especially TikTok and Instagram. Um, and Snapchat. So, I understand the sentiment. But I just… I'm not seeing the evidence for the benefits. People say that it has these… but I can't find evidence that this is good for them.
Children’s rights are not a ‘sentiment’; they are internationally recognised and shape policy and research worldwide. They cannot be ignored simply because they complicate the narrative. I posed this question because there is a delicate balance between upholding a child’s right to safety and protection and the right to participate and have their voices heard on matters that affect them. It needs careful, evidence-led discussion, with children at the table, not knee-jerk prohibitions. Balance comes from consultation, digital literacy, targeted protections and accountability, and yes, it's more complex but far more constructive. Haidt’s reply illustrated the protectionist framing under critique. Rather than engaging with rights frameworks (e.g., UNCRC) or concerns that overemphasising safety risks silencing young people’s voices, Haidt reframed the issue as one of adult responsibility versus libertarian permissiveness. That rhetorical move sidelines children’s participatory rights in favour of an overprotective, adult-centric lens.
Haidt answered my rights-based question by mischaracterising it as ‘kids should do whatever they want online.’ That wasn’t the question or the intended meaning (obviously). Children’s rights aren’t a Big Tech plot; they’re a well-established framework supported by leading researchers and charities, i.e., they exist. See Prof. Sonia Livingstone’s long-standing work on children’s rights in the digital environment (LSE / Digital Futures for Children) and the 5Rights Foundation’s research and codes that put children’s interests first in design and policy. https://www.digital-futures-for-children.net/home
On the evidence, claims of a simple, global causal story (social media = epidemic of mental illness) don’t match the research base. Prof. Candice Odgers' reviews find effects are typically small, mixed, and vary by child and context; in terms of poor mental health, there are multiple determinants (not just screen use) that drive outcomes. See Odgers’ review in Nature for a short, sharp overview of Haidt’s work: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 and her work summarising the field: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221420/.
If you want both sides in one place, I recommend watching the Haidt–Odgers discussion hosted by the University of Virginia (TYDE) in 2024. It’s an actual debate with pushback, not a one-way webinar. https://tyde.virginia.edu/livestream-odgers-haidt/
TL;DR
- Rights do not equal permissiveness. Young people do have rights: they need safety and a say.
- The science is not ‘phones = epidemic.’ It’s nuanced: risks and opportunities are intertwined and differ by age, context, and child.
- Think critically: question claims, include young people’s voices, and look at the whole picture, not just fear-led narratives, and encourage young people to do the same.
- If you’re making family rules, aim for supportive structure, not blanket panic; listen to your child and adjust. And please, demand good evidence from everyone - including best-selling authors.
Note to the Mumsnet team: would you consider inviting Professor Candice Odgers or Professor Sonia Livingstone for a follow-up webinar? Parents deserve to hear a robust alternative view of the evidence.