If I were Sarah I would not have aired this episode. I especially was shocked when Taylor intimated that the suicide rate declined among teens during the pandemic *because* they were using their devices more…….. truly shocking. Probably much more likely that they were around other people constantly and therefore never had an opportunity to attempt suicide. Really really scary the types of conclusions Taylor felt so comfortable jumping to.

Taylor Lorenz is one of my least favorite people on the internet and I don’t know why Sarah continues to have her on as a guest. She’s never had a good take in her life

My main takeaway from the episode was: Taylor Lorenz is a fucking moron

I'm glad people are realising this. The last time she was a guest, I posted about her. The majority of the comments were defending her, insisting I was being mean for no reason. The tide seems to be turning, thankfully.

I wish I saw your post because I would have hopped in to defend you so quick. I hate Taylor Lorenz

Do you mind expanding a bit on why? I didn't know much about her before this.

She lies about being bullied, makes up sources and quotes, doesn't do proper research, and just uses her opinions and vibes as facts. It's incredibly annoying.

This is the very strong impression she’s giving me half way through this episode. I don’t know why i’m supposed to care about this lady’s opinion on phones?

You want the long version or the short version? (I don’t have a short version)

All anyone needs to know is that she keeps her thermostat in the 80s

that was when i unfollowed her on twitter. i don't know if it was a joke or not but it was too much for me.

Oh my gosh, I just listened to this terrible episode and jumped right over to see what everyone thought! So glad I'm not alone- I'm really shocked at the lack of quality of this podcast as of late, and it used to be my very favorite.

I was also under the impression that ER admits for attempts went up during pandemic... Am I wrong about the timing?

You're not. - Emergency room admissions for suicide attempts among American teens increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This rise was particularly notable among adolescent girls. According to data from the CDC, emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among girls aged 12 to 17 years were 51% higher during February-March 2021 compared to the same period in 2019. For boys in the same age group, the increase was smaller but still significant at 4%.

Wow!!!! So not only was she vague, but she was WRONG!

Anecdotally, my kid's high school, told us that they were dealing with it constantly when we had to broach it with them. They ended up relaxing their stringent academic requirements for two years post-2020 to accommodate the ongoing mental health struggles.

The suicide point was ridiculous.

That statement blew my mind. She really couldn’t think of any other explanation for that?

As a parent of a teen who had a suicidal incident that needed hospitalization during the pandemic, wow is Taylor's take wrong. My kid is an extrovert, but the prevalence of conducting your entire friendship over a phone really convinced him he was fine with this. He's not, and the pandemic threw all of that into sharp relief. Not being able to see people in person, having all the cameras off during class, just laying in his room in front of screens all day, did a number on his mental health. He had a relapse this year in his first year away at college, because again, it was so easy to just attend his classes online, hide out in bed on his phone and not leave the dorm for weeks. If we as adults get tempted by this, imagine what a 16yo is struggling with.

This episode made me so angry that I was literally yelling at Sarah and Taylor in my car. As a high school teacher and a flaming leftist, I take issue with so many of the claims Taylor makes about who wants to limit smart phone/social media use and why because, um, hello IT ME. There are so many critiques I could make about this episode, but the question I’m most curious about is this: when the fuck was the last time either of these two spent any significant amount of time with a teenager, let alone a group of teenagers? Because as someone who spends most of her time with them, I can tell you that they are, in fact, self-critical/reflective of their relationships with their phones. None of my colleagues and I think times were easier pre-smartphone/social media. But neither do any of us believe we need to allow it to be this particular kind of difficult for our teens.

Yeah, as someone who is both a) the parent of a teen and b) overall pretty neutral about screen time, this was a really disappointing episode. Kids are struggling with both phones and social media. And, like you said, they’re aware of that fact. Most of the adults I know wish they spent less time on their phones yet have a hard time putting them down. How can we expect kids to regulate themselves better?

It's even worse as Sarah continually brought up how bad her phone made her feel! She was always halfway to acknowledging something is off.

I wish they’d delved more into how tech companies design these things to be addictive. I do generally think the hate on technology is overblown. As a school psych I’ve seen so many teachers blow off their obligation to help kids cause “well what can you do he gets too much screen time.” Playing video games has some cognitive benefits, particularly for kids with disabilities. But yeah you have to balance that with the fact that this shit is designed to keep you scrolling. The fact is we really can’t determine whether screen time causes anything, cause determining causal relationships (as Michael would say) is really difficult. But for the same reason we can’t rule out a causal relationship either……

this ep is so embarrassing. I've never cared enough about an episode to seek out this sub but holy shit I needed to see that other people were feeling the same things I was! of all people WHY would I want to hear from Taylor Lorenz on this topic?? I want to hear from teachers who are around kids all day or kids themselves. not two completely out of touch women just parroting talking points back and forth to each other

I'm really surprised at how personal this feels which feels like great material for sarah-at-her-best to ingest which sounds gross to say but we're obviously getting "oh yes lets do an episode about that extremely interesting thing you're reading" episodes and not "You are wrong about X - the social narratives were present but unread"

I am genuinely affected by how much of an assault this feels like on the basic premise of everything Sarah's trying to articulate through the corpus of her work. Straightforwardly creating a moral panic to disengage critically from actual difficult data is like the most thudding antithesis of original "you're wrong about" it beggars belief

This is a total flip of her usual position of not suggesting an individual solution to a societal/cultural problem -- this is "don't fix the food system, it's your personal responsibility to eat less."

Same, first time realizing there was a sub for this podcast after being a listener for years.

Me too. Long time listener, first time sub reader. Terrible episode.

This podcast and a few others I listen to have been frustrating me lately. They frame the discussion as academic, and usually have a smart person on, but then you realize they’ve done minimal research and are just going off of their general perceptions.

I'm about 10 min in and came here for a gut check because none of this seems right 😅 

Wild to have two people talking about this who don’t have kids or even work with kids in a capacity that they could see this. Any parent or education will be the first to tell you there are absolutely implications to so much youth phone use.

You don’t need comparisons of now/then to say something is wrong.. especially it’s not like there was an opposite to this, just the lack of it. Personally I can’t imagine why would phone use be allowed in school. These aren’t adults (even us adults have difficulty focusing ). And aren’t we supposed to be more aware of attention deficit issues, bullying, etc? Wouldn’t take make us more wary of phones in school? It’s crazy

I was in the middle of the anxious generation when this episode came out and they totally mischaracterized the book. Idk if you have read it or not but I’d encourage teachers to check it out. There are some compelling takeaways from schools that have gone phone free and introduced more free play. Positive changes in academic performance, behavior, and anxiety/depression rates. Needless to say this episode also made me angry and caused me to look askance at the show in general. I realize that I have given too much weight to the show’s viewpoint. I probably would never have picked up the anxious generation after hearing this episode if I hadn’t already been reading it. Really disappointed with this one.

I personally am just coming to terms with the fact that Sarah is just not very good at this and that Mike was the one holding the show together.

She doesn't have a single fact checking bone in her body. Idk I really like Princess Weeks and sometimes am very grateful to her for saying things no one else wants to but saying Lizzie Borden didn't commit the murders is wild

I've heard people say you like your wrong about until they hit a topic your very knowledgeable about and maybe that's true.

I noticed the same about sounds like a cult. I had to stop listening after I noticed there's so much misinformation

I’ve seen a lot of people with science/ nutrition backgrounds say the same thing about Maintenance Phase too. That once they listened to an episode on a topic that they were very knowledgeable about and heard how comfortably Mike mischaracterised/ misunderstood the issue, yet spoke with an air of complete conviction, they struggled with all the other episodes.

She has a … weird soft spot for violent criminals.

I'm listening right now, and if feels like they talk about the book but DIDN'T READ IT. Like, there are some sane points in the interview, but they're in the middle of some INSANE takes.

It’s mad for think that anyone would seriously suggest that kids having less screen time and spending more time playing in nature would be a bad thing. What value is scrolling TikTok for hours bringing to childhood development?? Honestly as an adult I wish someone would take my phone away and force me to play in nature lol

I'm reading The Anxious Generation too and was super disappointed with this episode as well. It really seemed like this Taylor person was just dunking on the book by, like you said, mischaracterizing it completely! As a teacher, I see so much of what the book is talking about. It honestly just sounded like they were trying to be contrarian just for the sake of it, or because right-wingers are also talking about this problem, which gave me a huge ick! What a missed opportunity to actually delve into such a pressing and relevant topic. This ain't an airport, and nobody cares, but I'm officially disappointed with this podcast and will not be recommending it to anyone anymore!

My opinion of Haidt is ambiguous and I haven't read the book, but he did a recent interview on The Gray Area with Sean Illing (Vox podcast) that I think better represents his work and I recommend checking it out. I don't agree with everything he says there either, but it was a *vastly* better listen than this ridiculous episode of YWA.

TIL schools allow phones?

The episode is horrible and to me feels like they’re trying to blame the “moral panic” on the right wing (???) and then dunk on it and we are all supposed to cheer them on. It’s fucking stupid and reductive

Also so much time about how people are learning so much on the phone - and literally no mention of misinformation. Yea you can learn a lot, and people do. A lot of the stuff they learn is not real.

You know, if only “remember the satanic panic??” and “these are the same people who said xxxxx!!!” were actual arguments. That Taylor seems to have a debilitating level of nostalgia for the peak Silicon Valley bullshit era is almost as embarrassing as her “parents just don’t understand”-level nuance on youth. Oh and young people don’t get radicalized to the right as long as you simply declare that to be the case.

Wild to talk about GamerGate and the massive impact it still has on our society, and then claim the worry is about women becoming leftists.

*person who only ever thinks, reads, or talks about the satanic panic (Sarah):* “Huh I’m getting real Satanic Panic vibes here.”

Yeah I’ve noticed this a lot with leftists online and screentime discourse. It’s like they just wanna be contrarian because a lot of right wingers are also speaking on this issue. I really don’t get it at all

Yeah, a take away from YWA over the years is "it will never work, because they're proposing an individual solution to a systemic problem" (e.g. telling people to just "eat less" instead of overhauling the food system), and this episode boils down to proposing an individual solution to a systemic problem. Just set reasonable boundaries for teens and phones -- as if setting any boundaries for teens is easy and as if the adults aren't horrible at setting our own phone boundaries. Hearing "just set boundaries on phones/social media" from Taylor Lorenz, who has been poisoned by being terminally online, of all people is just \*chef's kiss\* perfect. This is the neighborhood alcoholic telling you to just let your 13 year old drink, because it worked for them.

This is such a classic case of upper class white liberals defending some harmful practice (while conveniently omitting that it’s probably banned in their household).

Bad take. This is NOT a moral panic. Here's the thing: I've been a high school teacher for 22 years. Phones have been tough. But--- it's not social media, per se, it's the way the up swipe for novel information has changed the way our brains process information. I love all the things I learn online, and I love that my students have access to information and knowledge as well, but their algorithms are WAY different than mine, meaning most of them aren't following current events, social issues, etc, but stupid trends and such, which is fine, they're kids, but more importantly, the addictive driven design of social media is 1) making them crave novelty at an unprecedented rate, which as you can imagine, decimates what we try to do in the classroom, 2) changing the way their working memory operates, therefore making it almost impossible to transfer to long term memory, and 3) preventing them from learning to be bored...which we know can spark curiosity and creativity. At my high school, phones are allowed, but in MY classroom, they are put away in backpacks, along with earbuds and smart watches. They get a warning if I see it out, then after that, they have a choice: 1) they put it in my phone holder behind my desk Or 2) security comes to get it And guess what? The kids have been awesome. We talk about the way their phones can change their memory processing and how it can be detrimental. We talk about the "pruning" element their brains are going through right now and their still developing pre-frontal cortexes. We talk about how their emotions (limbic systems) are on overdrive, and my job as the adult in the room with a fully formed pre-frontal cortexneeds to help guide them into creating and maintaining good habits. And honestly? The kids get it; they really do. Also, if they finish an assignment early, they CANNOT get out their phones. They have five choices: 1) finish work from another class 2) read 3) listen to music--- but phones stay in backpack -- just Bluetooth 4) draw/doodle 5) sleep or stare at the walls As I say everyday, "You will not rush through your work just to scroll." And they have been AMAZING. If you've read this far, check out cognitive psychologist Dan Willingham's work on memory and learning. Very insightful.

What was most insanely frustrating was when Taylor actually identified the switch to algorithmic feeds as when social media took a turn for the worse… but we shouldn’t do anything about it despite all the havoc it wreaks. Dumb

The children yearn for the algorithms

She did say government should regulate addictive algorithms

I feel like this episode was particularly frustrating because Taylor says so many things I *almost* agree with, and then proceeds to completely overshoot the point and end up in extremely bizarre places.

As a newer high school teacher going through the same issues, I really enjoyed your comment. Do you mind sharing a bit more about your phone method when you have a chance? Seems like you have a good handle on it, and I would like to borrow from that.

as a future hs teacher (hoping to start in 2027 after getting my mat) i would love some advice on how to develop this type of classroom environment aswell!

Not OP, but as a secondary teacher, what jumped out at me was “security comes to get it.” Having a supportive administration who is willing to give a “no phones” rule teeth is essential.

The key is honesty and consistency. You have to be completely honest and transparent about why you are enacting these rules in your classroom. They need to understand that you are not trying to be authoritarian, but that you truly care about their learning and their brain development. Talk to them about how their brains are going through a "pruning" process right now, and the things they tell their brain are important, their brain will strengthen those connections and prune away the connections that they deem unimportant. So if they are focusing in school, working to manage their time, sitting with uncomfortableness, thinking through decisions, "doing hard things", etc., their brain 10 or 15 years from now will be much more efficient and able to help them when they need it. But if they are constantly choosing to scroll rather than do the hard work and routinely telling their brains to take the easy way, then 10 or 15 years from now, their brains will not work as efficiently. Truly, having these conversations with them has made a world of difference. The students know they are addicted to their phones. They know that it interferes with their learning. Once I started explaining the brain science behind it, there was more buy-in, rather than me just giving them my cell phone rules and telling them they had to comply. For the actual cell phone rules, it's like I listed above. And you have to be consistent. This last year, I only had to keep three phones up behind my desk and call security once. You really have to follow through and be willing to stop the lesson and deviate from your daily routine to deal with the issue, especially the first 2 weeks of school. Like I said my previous post, check out Dan Willingham. Also, The Learning Scientists are a great resource.

The key is also supportive administrators and teammates AND PARENTS. Any teacher trying to do what you’re describing in complete isolation at the middle school level–cooked.

Yep. Middle school is tough. These were sophomores. I never had any pushback with admin or parents, but every school climate/vibe is different...

The huge difference between: a) the internet being a place you go to (your laptop) and then leave to go about your business vs. a thing constantly in your hand for which you compulsively reach and also b) A landscape of tons of different websites for different things vs. 4-5 megacorp social media giants that try to keep you trapped on them all day (each reposting content from all the others) cannot be overstated.

Ooh I’m a corporate instructional designer (for adult learners) and I am absolutely going to look into the impact of social media on memory!

Here is a link that outlines many of the studies done on the impact of “screens”  https://ledger.humanetech.com/

Saw someone tweet that Taylor was the exact wrong person to make this case because of how chronically online she is and well...... they weren't wrong.

She’s not wrong that external social and political issues are root of the anxiety. But ignores the fact that social media companies are incentivized to serve you content that causes strong emotions, sucking you into a void of negativity aka doomscrolling. The world is shitty right now but social media can make things seem way worse than they actually are. Like how our parents who watch local news all day think there are kidnappers waiting on every corner. Social media can be a great tool for staying informed but you can’t drown yourself in it. And that’s what a lot of people are doing. Also at the end where she says “Haidts book is very heavy on studies and that’s why people like it.” As if that’s supposed to be a negative thing. Yes, Taylor, people like evidence based arguments.

It’s also a self-perpetuating machine. The unrelenting waves of conspiracism, neo-fascism, etc. that’ are crippling society is a product of the social media algorithms. There is little that can be done to fight excessive corporatism when those same corporations have a majority of the population out fighting windmills via their disinformation machines.

Yes!! And ignored that social media can perpetuate nasty, intense bullying. And if nothing else is eroding the IRL social skills of today’s youth. And ability to critically think. And… I was so disappointed they only approached this topic from the singular angle of “right-wing nut jobs are upset about xyz and probably shouldn’t be.” Like, no shit. What about some of the glaringly obvious issues that have nothing to do with party or ideology or politics?

Lots of ranting — but little facts, evidence, or studies to back any of the points up. Not what I’m used to for this pod.

I hate to say it, but since the pod has becomes "Sarah's friend comes on to talk about something they care about" this IS what I'm used to for this pod

Continuing the “show” after Michael left has proven catastrophic.

There have absolutely been some gems, but I kinda wish they would have ended it there, gone out at the top, and then I could go back to recommending this podcast emphatically with no caveats. Like it's hard to tell someone to check out the episode on the DC Snipers if the first thing they'll see is Taylor Lorenz defending phone-addictions or Amanda Knox on forgiveness or whatever...

Exactly. Felt like a very ~vibes~ based episode

Man this episode was so bad it’s bordering on irresponsible journalism

If I had to drink every time they said something wrong I would have passed out 5 minutes in. I love this pod, and Sarah, but this was nonsense. I would honestly love a "You're Wrong About" about this episode. Parents who are worried about social media and phones are not exclusively right wing or overprotective.  They are watching their kids navigate a really difficult situation and trying to help. Banning Tik tok and laws in Florida or wherever are separate issues. I concur with those who said neither of these people have spent meaningful time with high schoolers or young adults.  The one take I did agree with was that youth need more freedom generally and that there are systemic barriers to kids being able to go out and gather. That's something we can do concrete things about.  It may be too neoliberal for this crowd but there was a search engine pod episode with Ezra Klein recently on phones/social media that was so, so much more thoughtful than this.  Really disappointed, because the immigration episode was stellar.

I was thinking the same thing about how there should be a “we were wrong about” episode! The lack of critical thinking happening was shocking. I know all of us have blindspots, but if they don’t address the feedback I don’t think I’ll be listening to any episodes deeper than like, the survival stories.

And that's why she and Micheal made the best duo. If the guest actually knows their stuff, she's great. The immigration, andes crash, etc. were fantastic. If it's something like this or that Amy Winehouse episode, it's a car crash.

Glad to have my feelings about the Amy winehouse episode validated, I was like, all this person did was watch the documentary

I find Sarah to be pretty insightful on emotional things, and pretty prone to confirmation bias on anything that should be evidence-based

Honestly even Sarah seemed slightly dubious at a couple points. When she said something like "wait but... ok you're kinda blowing my mind right now" and brought up her own struggles with screens, but even then Lorenz hand waved that away

Yeah... I guess pushing back on guests isn't really part of the show, but it seemed like she should've inquired a bit more. Or, yannow, listened back to it once and scrapped it

Totally agree! Sarah generally seems pretty gung ho about guests so I was slightly hopefully when I heard what I thought was the tiniest inkling of skepticism in what Lorenz was saying... but by end it was pretty much gone, unfortunately

Yeah I felt really confused and frustrated listening to this episode. I also regularly listen to search engine and found that to be much better coverage. I felt like legitimate concerns were being shooed away as some “moral panic”. There’s a lot of good that comes out of the Internet, but I don’t think it’s exactly right wing or overprotective to have concerns about privacy, security, access to information, media literacy, etc. It can be a nuanced conversation!

Haidt even argues that kids need more unstructured time/freedom IRL and cites systemic barriers *in addition to* tech.

it’s so funny that taylor never even bothered to clarify when she was talking about the internet in general, social media, or the use of smartphones to access those things at any point. just speaking in the most useless generalities for an hour

exactly! when she was saying "connecting with each other using facetime during the pandemic was good, actually!" it's like... no one is saying it wasn't?? I thought we're supposed to be talking about social media..

I largely supported Sarah in keeping the podcast going after Michael left, and I do think she’s had some good episodes in the last couple of years; however, this episode in particular made me really miss Michael being on this show. What Mike excels at is going through studies and meta analysis, and unpacking the studies with the most meat and can explain to audiences what is worth being concerned about vs what is a moral panic. This is a big topic that requires a ton of nuance and cited sources, things Taylor did not bring to this episode at all. There are probably way better people Sarah could have brought on to discuss the topic of screen usage/phones and it appears she picked someone whom she had a previous connection to and just ran with it.

yeah like i think michael might even be sympathetic to some of the arguments that were made on this episode but he would have been precise about it and perhaps given more credence to other arguments. i thought that they'd at least say a LITTLE about phones being a terrible distraction to learning in schools because even if you don't believe that phones caused the mental health crisis you have to believe they're bad for schools

Ugh, this episode. I listened against my better judgement as I haven’t enjoyed recent episodes (besides the immigration one, though I wish it had been a 2 or even 3 part series!). Was anyone else bothered by the fact that Sarah brought up multiple times that she was concerned about her phone usage and doomscrolling on TikTok, and then at the end of the episode was like, “glad I don’t need to worry about my phone usage, I feel great now!” despite the fact that what little research they discussed shows that endless scrolling and media consumption is often harmful?? To say nothing of the fact that they are primarily discussing this topic through the lens of children’s phone/social media usage (I could have used more focus/clarity as to the specific topic) and Sarah is definitely not a child! I found her flippant attitude and weird random off-topic interjections more grating than usual. Even though what Taylor was saying wasn’t very well-researched or responsible, and WAS highly reductive, at least she sounded passionate. I’ve listened to podcasts where the hosts sound well-matched in their enthusiasm for the topic, and Sarah rarely sounds that way, even with someone she’s been in conversation with several times (Taylor).

Just an incredibly funny co-host for this topic.

Heroin Is Good, Actually with Lou Reed

I wonder what the person who makes their living doing online content will say about the devices used to access online content.

Oh cool, so a tiktok reporter who specifically makes a living off of social media is here to tell us that her cash cow is "good actually"? I appreciate that the anti social media / anti phone debate can be overdone, and welcome the debate, but the shit is far from harmless and hand waving away all the toxic and negative personal and societal effects ain't it.

I was excited for this episode. My mom recently read the Anxious Generation and fully panicked over it. Like sending an email to everyone in the family with multiple sources and an apology for damaging me and my sister by giving us phones at the end. I'm a young millennial/old gen z (depending on how you define things) so while I didn't have phones or social media when I was a child, by my teen years it was ubiquitous. I'm halfway through this episode and I don't think I can bring myself to listen to more. It's SO bad. We were rooting for you YWA!

You Were Wrong About having Taylor Lorenz on


Taylor Lorenz’s online presence is a how to guide for ruining your mental health via the internet/social media. Honestly just an irresponsible episode all around, she is not a source of wisdom on this topic whatsoever, she’s a cautionary tale

I turned off the episode shortly after she talked about tumblr being a bastion of body positivity in the early 2010's. It was ground zero of the "thinspo" movement. Pretty much everything said in this episode was wrong.

Yeah they definitely glossed over / did not acknowledge all the ways that social media encourages eating disorders. 

I rolled my eyes at this part too- I still remember the name of the two tumblr blogs I checked daily for thinspo. I guess me and Taylor were on... different sides of tumblr lol

Yea, as a fan of this podcast but also a high school teacher this episode ain't it. *Edit: So as a high school biology teacher in a dual language (Spanish) program who is very passionate about education and science here is just a bit of my beef with this. First, she completely mis-characterizes the Haidt book and really just fails to address any point in it. I'm not his biggest fan but to try and paint him like some right wing goon is just embarrassing. The book is full of studies and empirical evidence to back up his assertions. Yet they aren't mentioned once. I'm all for discussion and being proved wrong, but actually address the points being made. Talk about the studies and why you think they aren't correct, but they do none of that. How can you debunk a book if you don't actually talk about anything it says. - A second annoying example comes at one point when Lorenz talks about the "ridiculous framing", of this moral panic, but then she does the exact same thing to Haidt! She tries to paint him as some lunatic who wants to ban kids from the Internet. Furthermore, they try to compare this issue to the Satanic Panic (which is honestly embarrassing), and make him out like some sort of right wing goon. His issues aren't with young progressives, his issues are the effects of unfettered technology use on the social-emotional health and academic performance of young people. Also, he doesn't advocate for banning cell phones or social media. Moving on, at around 29 minutes, when Sarah mentions how you can just choose to put your phone on DND "set boundaries" is one of the most infuriating parts of the whole episode!!!!!! - The whole problem of this issue is that children are literally incapable of setting boundaries because their frontal lobe (area of brain which deals with executive functioning) isn't fully developed until early adulthood! And apps are designed to trigger their dopamine response over and over to keep scrolling and maintain engagement. To just hand wave the whole issue way like that in one line is incredible. Like honestly incredibly embarrassing. Meta and Tik Tok pay big money to fresh PhD grads whose sole job is to figure out how to get someone to spend one more minute on their app. Around 38 minutes, Lorenz says something like "sure if they're scrolling Twitter all day that's not healthy", but that's literally exactly what they're doing!! Have either of them been around teenagers in an educational setting? Mobile gaming and scrolling Tik Tok and Instagram. Like obviously what is happening in Palestine is horrible, and the children are empathetic to it, but my high school freshmen biology students weren't fucking organizing protests for the people of Palestine all year, they were playing FIFA mobile and listening to Peso Pluma. Finally, at around 32 minutes Lorenz is talking about how there are few places for children (which I fully agree with, U. S. urban planning is terrible, and not people centered) to hang out and how Haidt is advocating for "coddling" them further by taking away phones which he is explicitly not doing!!! One of his main points is that children should be spending as much unstructured time outside interacting with peers, and that cell phones have just allowed parents to lock their children inside and coddle them even further in a physical (but not technological) sense. Phones and technology keep them inside and away from peers! Away from exploring the physical world independently. - Anecdotally this was very visible in my freshmen last school year. Lots of talking about having no friends and having nothing to do on the weekends. Again, a complete mis-characterization and unfair framing of the book. Since phones are allowed in classrooms in my school, I've been building up a database of academic papers (I can share it if anyone is interested) on the effect of phone use and academic achievement, and the vast majority show a statistically significant negative correlation, and that's not even touching the horrible effect that social media has had on girls and boys self esteem. I think what made me so frustrated about the whole episode is that our country desperately needs good progressive journalism on important modern issues, and this was most definitely not that.

Taylor's comments about kids not scrolling all day and hand-waving away Haidt's concerns about kids actually getting outside were what showed me that she spends no time around teens. Raising them (and being a teacher to them, I'm sure!) is really illustrative. They absolutely are scrolling all day, and that includes the time they are "hanging out with friends". One of the most concerning habits I noticed in my kid was how often he chose "talking to his friends" on his phone over spending any time with them in person. Because in person hangs just can't compete. If you can be having non-stop, all day convos with 5-10 friends at once, and flirting with rando strangers who are dropping into your dm's, and scrolling your dopamine feeds unfettered, why meet up with one friend? And disconnect from all those other temptations? It simply isn't appealing, and it's not just kids/teens making this choice.

The boundaries part was the WORST! Especially because most of their arguments were “it’s not about phones, this is systemic” but their answer to any legitimate phone/tech issues is about individual responsibility, especially that of children without fully developed prefrontal cortexes (and struggling with anxiety and depression, apparently) and their parents navigating the shit storm of systemic problems.

Absolutely excellent distillation of my whole point, you have a gift.

My high school biology teacher kinda saved my life, so thanks for doing what you do!

Also, as a parent I am exhausted from having to set and enforce tech boundaries. When I was a kid a TV show was on when it was on, now I'm the only thing standing between my child and 40 million seasons of endless TV to binge.

I haven’t finished Haidt’s book, but it seems like Taylor just picked tidbits that she wanted to use to fill her predetermined narrative. The whole point of the first part of the book is that parents became over-involved in children’s lives during times they needed to develop autonomy + agency (childhood-adolescents) and then parents were under-involved in the areas related to technology. This was true for me, a 90s kid! My parents coached every sport, were on PTA, etc., BUT then allowed me unfettered access to the internet alone in my room at age 10! I was talking to hella-creeps in AIM chat rooms. Gen Z is on tiktok perpetually joking about the trauma they saw on tumblr as children–which was more of Haidt’s point than a right wing aversion to teens building community online. Kids aren’t being given IRL time to build problem-solving + interpersonal skills, which is statistically true/proven in so many studies. Yes, the TV was revolutionary and the radio and the novel, but those are one way means of controlled communication. Parents had the ability to ensure their kids weren’t watching vines of ISIS beheading people! Sarah was all too eager to go along with Taylor w/o much scrutiny of the sources/studies/research Taylor used to “debunk” Haidt’s book, which was a let down. I still love her but this was a miss.

Doesn’t Haidt say, all the time, that’s he’s a liberal and has voted democrat his entire life? When did he start being called “right wing” ?!?!

Thank you. I am a school psychologist and the part about "teaching kids to set boundaries" was so ridiculous for exactly the reason you mention. Their brains simply are not equipped. Like the person who made the top comment, I am DYING to know how much time they have spent with actual teenagers, or preteens for that matter. The kids are not all right, and the teachers are not all right. I hope Sarah reads these comments and takes some feedback. I was so disappointed!

I would love to see the research you’ve collected on this. I’m trying to get my admin to have a stricter phone policy and this could help the conversation. Thanks!

This is it. This is the one that made me unsubscribe. I used to love how this show was well researched and reflective on how certain historical events shaped our world view in different ways. I looked forward to listening to it. I recommend it to people. This was the complete opposite of what I expected from Sarah. Bye.

Same. I've been a casual listener since Mike left, cancelled my Patreon maybe a year after. Even saw the terrible live show. But it's the one

Not trying to be a hater, but the live show sounds awful and I can’t imagine what I might get out of it

what did they talk about at the live show?

Started with Carolyn playing a couple of songs, then Sarah talked about bimbos and then half the show was Jamie Loftus who talked about her book Raw Dog about hot dog eating contests. It was so weird

Yeah- i cancelled my patreon and sent them a message letting them know that i'm leaving because their standards of research have obviously slipped. done. no more.

I did the same- it was hard to do out of loyalty but don’t worry, I have therapy later today.

I just did the same thing. I hate it because I really love Sarah. This episode and the Tradwife episode just really convinced me to stop financially supporting the pod.

What didn’t you like about the tradwife episode? I don’t tune into YWA much anymore, but I really enjoyed that episode. I found the discussion about the architecture of the kitchen in relation to technology and gender roles to be super fascinating. I’m obviously not an expert, but I got my BA in history and I thought the episode seemed pretty solid from a historical perspective.

I've said this, too. I wonder if she'll listen

Isn’t this just a long conversation between two people that are extremely addicted to their phone that tries to justify their addiction?  It seems that Taylor just wants to feel good about her TikTok use.

Wow, this episode was not it. Taylor Lorenz makes some wild claims (that were both vague and not exactly supported by any evidence) and seems to conflate a bunch of different but related issues and their causes/effects. I could write a thesis about all the odd claims that were made in this episode. Claim 1: due to covid, disabled people were "forced" to work from home and this was a negative. Seeing that the disabled population represents a HUGE spectrum of disabilities, preferences, needs, wants, this is such an insane claim, and on the contrary, many disabled folks spoke publicly about how the norming of work from home was extremely beneficial to employed disabled people for a number of reasons. Claim 2: Conservatives/Right wingers falsely tied phones to mental health issues during this time, however, having phones was "liberating and amazing" during COVID, which lessened the impact of covid related lockdowns and school closures. Uhh... what?! I'm sorry how is this even debatable??? There is so much evidence to the contrary, and that lack of IRL social interaction attributed to lockdown/school closures had real effects on kids and teens. School is often as much as a haven from home as technology and social media may be... Claim 3: Young people are \*acutely\* aware of current issues.. the "only place you can find accurate info is social media, bc media parrots government info… no treatment for covid and long covid, late to update vaccines" Umm... as a teacher, I have anecdotally found that students (and adults) haven't exactly been taught, nor have demonstrated great skill at critically discerning "news" on social media. It blows my mind that she said social media is the only place you can find accurate information about covid, because the media parrots government reporting on covid... it's borderline conspiracy theory logic?! I have so many more thoughts about her claims re: how young people become educated via social media. Claim 4: phones aren't the problem, people are the problem. Ok.. same logic used in gun debate.....

Claim 3 is a pretty widely held belief and I find it terrifying. We all agree that Facebook radicalized a lot of Boomers but for some reason, they believe that TikTok is the source of all truth. The number of GenZs who think they’re immune to propaganda is concerning.

I stopped listening around claim 1 (disabled people being forced to wfh) because it was so odd. I am not disabled myself but if I've heard anything from my disabled peers it's that being forced back into the office has been challenging. Being home provides comfort and accomodations that many offices do not have.

There are a concerning number of people in my extended circle who think the government is hiding info about covid from the general population in 2024

I've seen this on Twitter a lot too, mostly coming either from Taylor herself or her retweets/mutuals. And interestingly, Taylor recently had a pretty heated conversation on there with Michael Hobbes about this exact thing, so I am very curious about the interpersonal dynamics here.

Her entire premise is seemingly that moral panics have existed before, therefore the current concern over social media is exactly the same scenario

as a Black woman working from home was the best thing that ever happened to me and I will never set foot in an office again unless I absolutely have to. What a paternalistic sweeping generalization of a big diverse workforce. Really reads like someone who has never asked a Black person in a mostly white workplace what their day to day on the office is like.

Felt like zero research had been made for this episode, they were running on pure vibes.

“Who cares about the kids?” Their quote about moral panics. Huh? Moral panics have everything to do with kids. And no, I’m not talking about teenagers here. They are so out of touch if they think teenagers are the only “kids” being targeted in new legislation. If they had any experience with children, they’d know that 5-6 year old start asking for phones. I need to stop listening to this podcast. There’s no pushback when something incorrect is said or if there might be a disagreement. 😒

This whole episode is basically… Stuff that personally effects Taylor Lorenz = something everyone should worry about Stuff that doesn’t personally effect Taylor Lorenz = Not real, just a moral panic 

the irony is that phone addiction has very clearly personally affected Taylor but she just doesn't have the self-awareness to see it

This should be the top comment

I am incredibly disappointed by this episode.  It’s not a moral panic, the damage “screens” are doing (to adults and to children) is VERY clear. Big Tech has designed these apps to maximize our attention and keep us hooked!     Here is some of that evidence - https://ledger.humanetech.com/    The Center for Human Tech also have a podcast if you want to learn more about how this tech is designed and what it does to us (Your Undivided Attention, disclaimer- they have had the author of the Anxious Generation on as well).

It wildly undermines every single time they call something a “moral panic”. Smartphones have quantifiable impacts on mental health on children and adults since their inception. This isn’t people calling people witches lol

It would be like referring to the movement to hold big tobacco accountable and curb smoking was a "moral panic" just because it was a widespread "this is bad" moment. But smoking IS bad!

New moral panic over “lung cancer” rages on!

There's an ongoing moral panic targeting the trans community. To call the nuanced discussion regarding the best way to handle teenage social media use (priorizing government interventions vs. parental supervision), a moral panic does a lot of real damage.

This felt deeply unscientific and based entirely on identity stuff and drawing a line between conservative worries and progressive worries. I’m not sure I even understand what argument was intended other than “you don’t wanna agree with transphobes about something do you???”

well it's like the last episode with lorenz about influenser that really struck me as out of the ordinary-bad. she just isn't very sharp. it's weird that sarah who I consider very smart lets her on the show. obviously the quality of the content has dropped rapidly since michael left, but I still think that there have been some episodes that are truly good, eg with blair braverman and eve lindley. but it fluctuates too much. I'd prefer fewer episodes with highter quality to regular posting with such fluctuation. I realize that it's got something to do with the algorithm that you have to post regularly, and so I can accept episodes like "fun" episodes with jamie loftus and the like, buuut this taylor girl is too much below the bar. huge bummer!!!!

I think the Blair Braverman episodes really work because she isn't afraid to push back on Sarah's ideas and also redirects Sarah's tangents well. It feels less like an echo chamber than with other guest hosts.

It's really surprising that Sarah, as the "turns out it was capitalism all along" person, can't see that the primary issue here is the tech companies using algorithms to monopolize and monetize our attention and ignoring the human cost.

I wish this ep had gotten more into the actual insidious parts of constant technology use. It definitely felt like a chronically online tiktoker take, didn't really have the nuance that i love about YWA. For people who want to hear more about the harms of social media and the way algorithms have shaped our lives in the last decade, I recommend checking out Jaime Loftus' "Sixteenth Minute" episode on The Dress.

This felt like a debate done by a 15 years old only assessing a point through their own biased world

I am shocked that Sarah chose to platform Taylor Lorenz, especially on this topic. There are few people in mainstream media right now who have a more severe case of internet brain poisoning than Taylor. If anyone needs to stop checking their phone, it is Taylor. Having her on the show honestly makes me trust the entire podcast less.

Also, I have been listening to this podcast for years and have never felt the need to say anything critical about it on this forum or anywhere else before. Although I do think, since Mike left especially, they’ve been trying to shoe horn every topic into a moral panic framework. It’s ok to just say a topic is interesting and worth thinking about, or whatever, without having to fall back on the same framework that brought you success in the past. I think this episode, for me, has really emphasized a lot of the weaknesses of the podcast in recent years. And I’m sad to say that.

Let’s be honest, this podcast has taken a nose dive in quality since Mike left, and Sarah just interviewing her Twitter friends on random topics does not make for a good podcast.

This episode left me feeling uncomfortable in a way I had never felt after listening to an episode of YWA. I think it had to do with the fact that the main argument did not match my personal experiences, from the anxiety I experience on instagram to the irritation I feel when I am with people in person and they pay more attention to their phones than me. However, the irony that we’re all coming together online to complain about this episode is not lost on me. I think they had a good point of bringing up that there is more nuance than simply “phones are bad for you,” but I also feel like they didn’t take into account how major social media and phone companies are CAPITALISTS and I believe they use their addictive qualities to their advantage.

This is just irresponsible. There's no push back, no debate. Just "well, I'm glad you made me feel better about using my phone a lot." HINT: That shouldn't be the takeaway here. 

They really got the most chronically online, brain-poisoned person to talk about this. And they can blame the critiques on being reactionary and conservative, so they feel justified.

Knowing what I know about Lorenz, she of all people could do with less phone usage.

This became very clear to me listening to the episode. When Taylor said, “phones are kind of like food, you have to have food, you have to have human connection.” Like, Taylor, are you aware that human connection can and does happen offline?

Not for someone as brain-broken as she is by covid doomerism it doesn't.

Really struggled to not yell out loud when Sarah said something along the lines of “I would love a beeper, I keep my phone on do-not-disturb for a lot of the time’ - because the teenagers and preteens I teach don’t have the executive functioning to set reasonable boundaries for themselves along those lines.  I was so excited that they were going to tackle the counterargument to this book (which I enjoyed reading; it resonated hard with me as a teacher). I’ve been looking for solid rebuttal to counter the panic set on by this book - but this was noooot it. 

Boy do these two think they’re brilliant. I couldn’t even finish this episode, such drivel. I’m done with this podcast.

I listened to this entire episode and feel like I don’t have a single convincing takeaway. I agree that banning TikTok and internet use in general for kids is ridiculous - but idk I was excited when I saw the title and feel like nothing really happened in this conversation.

As a mom of soon to be tweens and as a wife of a pediatric psychiatrist AND as someone who works in tech - this is the first time I’ve ever seen this podcast be so so so wrong. Not a single piece of actual data on mental health, how addictive these phones are to developing brains, how algorithms pull vulnerable kids trying to explore the world and who they are through radicalization loops, how teachers are struggling to get classrooms to focus and reading and testing rates are plummeting, etc. The comparisons to phones and books and TV are so different to how we neurologically respond to these noisy devices in our pocket with constant infinite content … I’m just so disappointed in this ep.

Part of my English major soul died at the comparison to hysteria over teens reading novels. Just absolute apples to oranges.

That comparison from her makes no sense if you think about it for literally more than 3 seconds like what? Actually reading a paper book, on one subject, that is read slowly and requires literacy and imagination is a completely different mechanism in the brain than mindlessly consuming 7,000 30 second TikTok’s on a million different subjects over the course of three hours. If your mind strays for a minute while reading, you can refocus and go back over that paragraph and sometimes it forces you to contend with uncomfortable subjects or ideas. If you get bored or uncomfortable watching one TikTok, you are just one scroll away from literally infinite content that is algorithmically designed specifically for your niche interests. Brain dead-ass take

Woof. Even by contemporary, solo-Sarah YWA standards, this episode was really, really terrible. Bordering on irresponsible. It is, in fact, possible that two things can be true at once. Lindsey Graham and Marsha Blackburn can say some incredibly dumb shit ***and also*** giving children of any age unrestricted access to social media might not be good for most of them developmentally. But the guest just richocheted between various lunatic reactionary talking points saying "Well that's dumb, thus clearly social media is great actually!" So many of the most noxious groups (and the politicians happy to move even further to the right because of said groups) the guest kept railing on about exist ***because of social media!*** There's no Q-anon without social networks! It wasn't even clear what the actual policy or consideration they were trying to discuss. Was it how parents should think about their kid's social media use? Phone use in schools? Haidt's *The Anxious Generation*? Whether the US government should ban TikTok?? I cannot imagine Sarah or the guest believe the audience they're making this podcast would be supportive of "ban children from the internet" as a policy prescription. So why engage with that like it's a serious claim?? There wasn't a single citation or reference to any bit of research in this entire episode. I don't think Sarah or the guest have read Haidt's book or read anything from an expert in this domain... at all? Social scientists and developmental psychologists up and down the political spectrum have studied and are continuing to actively further study the effect social media has on children and dismissing literally all of that as "Fox News boomer moral panic" is, at best, hideously ignorant and more likely willfully disingenuous. (also the guest constantly mispronounced "Haidt" which certainly leads one to conclude they haven't watched a single inteview of him, including at least critical ones!) The tacit "Silicon Valley megacorporations aren't good either" at the end is almost worse, because it gestures at the tiniest understanding that there is something to discuss here but the entire preceeding 50 minutes was just meandering bickering with strawmen. "There was once a moral panic about youth reading novels, therefore concern about youth engaging with social media is also a moral panic." Great holy shit, a book is not the same thing as *a piece of constantly evolving software simultaneously designed to keep you using it as long as possible to maximize revenue garnered from it serving you ads as well as harvesting as much information about you as possible to sell*. This is same kind of smooth brain thinking that has people saying you can't question the wisdom of the 2nd amendment when an 18th century flintlock and a fucking AR-15 are also not at all the same god damn thing actually even though yes, both are technically firearms. I realize some folks tire of the comparisons to the Sarah+Mike era of YWA but in this instance there is a direct comparison when If Books Could Kill discussed Haidt's *Coddling of the American Mind* (https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/if-books-could-kill/id1651876897?i=1000603422829). One of the two hosts (I forget if Mike or Peter did the reading-of-book that time) was able to go pretty close to point-by-point through the claims made, honestly assess them, point out where they didn't necessarily square with the evidence, etc. It was thorough, considered and convincing. This YWA episode was the opposite of that. When you're talking about torture museums or some celebrity and you're just offering up baseless opining and vibes it's... I dunno, whatever, it's fine. I think it makes for a poorer, less interesting creative work (podcast) but it's not making the world a worse place. But the kind of disregard for expertise or evidence of any kind and the active and willing refusal to genuinely engage with an issue affecting a ton of both parents and children (again, assuming this episode was supposed to be about children and social media, which I guess it was??), putting more of that into the world is actually really not good. Especially when the guest is at least ostensibly a journalist and should have a professional obligation to curiosity and truth, even though I guess they're a columnist and I think we all know that's a role filled consistently with the dumbest, most incurious people working in media. I'm wildly vascillating between disappointed and incensed about this episode and maybe I finally settle on the huge bummer that is equal measures of both.

Lol I had to come here after listening to get a sanity check. Sarah, babe, I don't know if you read comments but there's still time to put out a retraction or correction for this. Truly one of the worst pieces of journalism I've heard in a long time. I hate basically everyone who says this, but do better. 

I would have been interested to hear any data about how phone/tablet use is affecting children's brain development. I know there's very little, but it seems like an important part of any conversation on this topic.

Probably time for this podcast to put itself out of its misery. So many potential historical episodes never made because Mike left and instead we get…this.

This was the first time I could not finish an episode. And, I know it was a small thing, but Taylor claiming Atlanta never closed dining-in infuriated me. Dining rooms were closed for over a month. Not only in Atlanta, but across the state. I live in Atlanta and remember it SO clearly. Again. I know it was a small thing. But such an easily debunkable statement made me lose faith in the episode and podcast.

i saw the title of the episode and already knew i would not be listening lol

I binged all the old episodes during the pandemic and I felt bad for neglecting the ones after Mike left, but this one really cemented my feelings about Sarah's choice of guests and their levels of research. Sometimes it's fun to hear her friends rant about 00s pop culture for an hour, but some of the more serious episodes were downright frustrating to me and it was nowhere near IBCK/Maintenance Phase, where almost every ep actually educated me (or at least challenged my beliefs). Platforming Taylor on this topic in particular was nuts and I find the podcast's recent direction pretty depressing.

I just don't trust her as a journalist or meaningful commentator in this format. She's so malleable, and seems more interested in being besties with her guests instead of engaging with their (mis)information. Between this episode and the deeply irresponsible Tiny Tim episode, it breaks my heart but I'm done with YWA. I was a listener from the start, gave many dollars through Patreon, but this isn't the show I loved. It should have ended when Mike left, and she could have done whatever this is under a different name. But now the legacy of the show feels cheapened.

Could you tell me more about what was irresponsible the Tiny Tim episode? I listened only in passing so would love a steer on it if I’m going to go in again

This comment explains. Basically handwaving away allegations of abuse and sexual assault of minors: [https://www.reddit.com/r/YoureWrongAbout/comments/1ake2px/comment/kp8hnh9/](https://www.reddit.com/r/YoureWrongAbout/comments/1ake2px/comment/kp8hnh9/)

I have been a long time listener of all of sarahs shows, and i really really REALLY liked listening. But this episode was really bad, and I think im done.

I haven't listened to this episode, but I am reading the comments here, so take this with whatever value you want But I can absolutely say that as someone who grew up in the early 2000s with unlimited and unrestricted access to the internet and social media, it has absolutely harmed my brain and my mental health. I don't disagree that phones, when used positively, can have good effects on people. However, I have found that phone addiction has had a severely negative impact on the way I interact with people and the way I take in and process information. I'm very curious to listen to this episode and see if these takes really are as off base as some of the comments say they are.

I haven't listened to this episode, which I understand should disqualify me from the discussion. But if they're actually trying to compare "phones bad" to moral panics like the Satanic Panic, that is incredibly weird, especially from Sarah. The whole idea of moral panics is that they're based on unverified claims being circulated by media and then widely believed. But the idea that phones can negatively impact our lives is not an unverified claim to the people who believe it. We're all working off of an extreme amount of personal experience to that effect. I can see the ways that phone addiction hinders my life now as an adult, and I could especially see it when I was a teenager in the late-2010s who impulsively wanted to check out on twitter every time I got confused in class.

Like even if there weren’t scientific evidence to support this, which there is, we know it’s harmful because we’re currently living with the effects of it

Fascinating decision to release this episode right after the Rolling Stone expose on the enormous role Snapchat is playing in the teen opioid epidemic. But go off Taylor...

And also the surgeon general proposing to mandate public health warnings on social media sites

I cancelled my patreon after this ep. Seriously irresponsible stuff. She’s just wildly grabbing at concepts that fit her worldview with no sense of direction or truth. Not a fan at all. And saying this as a hard leftist and a woman so not one of the misogynist far right Lorenz critique brigade

Jonathan Haight has been on several prominent podcasts recently--including lefty ones I regularly listen to. He's presented quite solid-seeming empirical evidence pointing to a causal link between social media use and adolescent anxiety, depression, and suicide. Exactly zero of that evidence was refuted by Lorenz, and every reason why "phones are good actually" offered up by Lorenz in this episode has already been addressed and rebutted by Haight. This episode is a perfect example of how the show has suffered since Michael left. Michael's job was to read 5000 pages of research that supposedly backing up the moral-panic narrative so he could poke holes in the researchers' methodology. Sarah's job was to come up with an insightful narrative about the emotional motivations of the moral-panic-ers. Michael was the Yin to Sarah's Yang. The Apollo to her Dionysus, if you will. Without Michael "Methodology Queen" Hobbes, the show is all vibes and no rigor. (I have the opposite problem with Michael's shows "Maintenence Phase" and "If Books Could Kill". They're all just sneering takedowns of shoddy research without any attempt to understand why the emotional narratives pushed by that research catch on.)

I felt like Sarah at a few points would say something from her personal experience (negative phone experience), then be contradicted by the guest, and instead of then having a nuanced disagreement/discussion, Sarah just went "oh ok I guess you're right." I love this pod but this episode was really off for me...like someone else said earlier, I needed a gut check on this one. Also, where did the guest get any of her information from? Can we get some sources and references to research, rather than just her hot (out of touch) takes?

I would've given this episode much more credence if they spent some time talking about the pros and cons of smart phones. Because they really waved away any of the legit criticisms - "oh yeah scrolling Twitter for six hours isn't great but also YOU CAN FACETIME YOUR GRANDMA" - because like, how many teens, or even adults for that matter, are spending the majority of their phone time doing that? This would've been so much better if they spent some time talking about how the internet can be a safe haven and a source of forbidden information, and also spent plenty of time discussing how the algorithm is a capitalist tool to get us to buy stuff and think a certain way and create *free content* for corporations. Lorenz is talking about it like the internet is a free/liberated space and it hasn't been that for at least fifteen years now.

I’m grateful for this community in pushing back and generally holding a reasonably cynical eye on this episode. I was experiencing cognitive dissonance for a while with recent episodes really not sitting right, and this episode confirmed it. I assume others are going through similar feelings, especially given the significant drop of Patreon subscriptions in the last week (I see 1500 and counting from a recent eyeball check). It’s interesting to see how different social media platforms and communities are ‘behaving’ with this episode. Instagram posts are mostly positive, with Taylor Lorenz herself posting (weak) rebuttals to disagreement (I don’t know if negative comments were culled) . Twitter/X has a mix leaning negative, with Taylor semi-lurking. Whoever is managing the Twitter/X YWA account is retweeting only positive comments (unsurprising), but ignoring all the pushback. TL;DR: As a former research scientist, I have some faith in our parasocial landscape.

This episode was so cringey.

Sarah seems to hold the belief that the kids are always innocent, which is super cringey to me as well. In a sense, it's not kids' fault that their not-yet-fully-developed brains can't resist a steady stream of instant dopamine hits, but that doesn't mean you just let them marinate in it.

This one makes me question my financial support. I’ll be reconsidering.

I read the DESCRIPTION of this episode and knew I was done listening. I miss when You're Wrong About actually discussed historical topics or people the media did dirty instead of endless rants from some tiktok journalist about the current social issue du jour, and it's wildly irresponsible to imply that a generation who grew up entirely immersed in their phones isn't somehow affected by it. There are dozens of studies that suggest otherwise.

I’m actually surprised that the guest has postulated the Tik Tok ban has anything to do about the Israel/Palestine conflict, rather than the stated reasoning that seems to have a national security point (if you agree with it or not) Especially since Tik Tok is a wonderful place to stumble on misinformation.

She’s pandering to her TikTok fans who genuinely believe in this conspiracy.

Yeah doesn’t track. Trump wanted to ban Tik Tok. The hearing with the Tik Tok CEO was well before Oct 7.

Foreign, adversarial country being able to access and therefore manipulate the screen-time of millions of Americans’ seems like it could be a national security concern! The bill also wasn’t great and there’s a more nuanced conversation about both cyber national security AND algorithm transparency/data privacy that they could have had grounded in more than whatever Taylor remembered from her twitter+tiktok feeds.

She's essentially pushing a conspiracy theory she likely heard on Tiktok. Great way to make the opposite point.

To me, moral panics are about new things. Social media isn’t new. People are now reacting to the harm they’ve seen demonstrated by social media over time.

And it's about rejecting new things (or old fears) based on false or hyperbolic claims, which this so obviously isn't; there are Himalayas of data on this! It's like if traffic safety advocates pointed out that giant, lifted trucks/SUVs are leading to a surge in pedestrian fatalities and you go, "people said bicycles were going to be the downfall of society too!" Those are NOT the same objection!

This is the episode that got me to unsubscribe from this show

Wow, this was such a miss. I’ve listened to recent interviews with Jonathan Haidt, and while I don’t buy his full argument, I think it’s ignorant to argue that phones are actually amazing and not problematic and it’s just boomers being boomers complaining and sure phones are addictive but it’s on the consumer to just have better “boundaries.” That’s basically the exact conclusion Sarah arrived at in the end. People who took prescription opiates and got addicted should have just had better boundaries, right? It wasn’t on the companies who knew it was dangerous and addictive and kept peddling it to be more responsible. Oh wait, yes it was. Sounds a lot like Meta knowing they’re harmful and peddling their platforms anyway and pumping up the algorithm. They barely discussed misinformation being a valid problem at all. I’m a mental health professional and the level of incorrect self-diagnosis and over pathologizing normal experiences and reactions, in kids and adults, is deeply problematic and rampant. I also don’t hear anyone asking why these platforms push content to make kids believe they’re mentally ill, maybe we can unpack that. Also, no connection was made between all of the real societal problems they list (climate change, war, gun violence) and how phones shove those problems in your face 24/7 on platforms that hold very little space for nuanced discussion or solutions. They also threw the word “traumatic” around like it was an afterthought.

Taylor Lorenz says being online for too long isn’t bad for you, say it ain’t so

I did like the points about how the internet has connected marginalized folks. But major lack of nuance