Claim

No social media until age 16 should be a norm.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "no social media until age 16 should be a norm" is supported by a growing body of evidence and expert opinion, particularly in light of concerns about the mental health impacts of social media on younger users. This discussion has gained traction, especially following insights from Jonathan Haidt's book, *The Anxious Generation*, which highlights the detrimental effects of excessive smartphone and social media use on youth mental health.

## Mental Health Concerns

Research indicates that social media can exacerbate mental health issues among adolescents. The pressure to seek validation through likes and shares can lead to increased anxiety and depression. Limiting access to social media until the age of 16 could provide a protective buffer, allowing young people to develop a stronger sense of self and emotional resilience before facing the complexities of online interactions[1][4].

Moreover, age restrictions could help mitigate risks associated with cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content. Adolescents under 16 are often not equipped with the necessary impulse control and emotional maturity to navigate these challenges effectively[5]. The argument for raising the minimum age for social media access aligns with findings that older teens generally possess better skills for managing peer feedback and online interactions[2].

## Legislative Support

Haidt advocates for legislative measures to raise the age of "internet adulthood" from the current standard of 13 to 16, suggesting that this change could help establish healthier norms around social media use among youth[4]. This perspective is echoed by various experts who argue that treating social media access similarly to alcohol or tobacco—by implementing age restrictions—could foster a safer environment for children and adolescents[4][5].

## Counterarguments and Challenges

While there are compelling arguments for delaying social media access, some critics point out potential downsides. They argue that strict age restrictions might limit children's opportunities for socialization and access to educational content available on these platforms[3]. Additionally, enforcement of age restrictions can be problematic, as many children can easily bypass age verification systems by falsifying their birth dates[5].

## Conclusion

In summary, advocating for a norm of no social media until age 16 is grounded in significant concerns about mental health, developmental readiness, and the need for protective measures against the risks associated with online interactions. While there are valid counterarguments regarding socialization and enforcement, the potential benefits of such restrictions—particularly in fostering healthier developmental environments—make a strong case for reconsidering current norms surrounding youth access to social media.

Citations

• [1] https://blackiowanews.com/delaying-youth-digital-access-can-we-counter-the-dark-side-of-social-media/
• [2] https://technosapiens.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-the-anxious-generation
• [3] https://www.alphapublisher.com/post/pros-and-cons-of-age-restrictions-on-social-media
• [4] https://eppc.org/publication/the-kids-are-not-all-right-a-review-of-jonathan-haidts-the-anxious-generation/
• [5] https://www.netnanny.com/blog/the-importance-of-social-media-age-restrictions/

Claim

In March of last year, Jonathan Haidt published a book called The Anxious Generation.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Jonathan Haidt's Book Publication Date

The claim states that Jonathan Haidt published a book called "The Anxious Generation" in March of the previous year. To verify this claim, we can examine the publication details of the book.

### Evidence and Verification

1. **Publication Date**: According to multiple reliable sources, including Barnes & Noble and Wikipedia, Jonathan Haidt's book "The Anxious Generation" was published on **March 26, 2024**[1][2]. This confirms that the book was indeed published in March of the previous year, given that the current year is 2025.

2. **Book Details**: The book explores the impact of modern childhood practices, particularly the rise of smartphone use, on the mental health of adolescents. It discusses how the shift from a "play-based childhood" to a "phone-based childhood" has contributed to an increase in mental health issues among young people[1][2][3].

3. **Author's Background**: Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist known for his work on moral and political psychology. His previous books include "The Righteous Mind" and "The Coddling of the American Mind," co-authored with Greg Lukianoff[1][2].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reputable sources, the claim that Jonathan Haidt published "The Anxious Generation" in March of the previous year is **true**. The book was released on March 26, 2024, and it addresses significant concerns about the impact of modern technology and parenting practices on children's mental health[1][2][3].

### Additional Discussion Points

– **Impact of Technology**: The book highlights the negative effects of excessive smartphone use and social media on children's social and neurological development, including issues like sleep deprivation, addiction, and loneliness[1][2][3].

– **Parenting and Societal Changes**: Haidt critiques the cultural shift towards overprotective parenting and the decline of independent play, advocating for a return to more traditional childhood experiences that foster resilience and social skills[2][4].

– **Legislative Actions**: The discussion around the book has prompted legislative actions in some countries to restrict smartphone use among minors, reflecting growing concerns about the impact of technology on youth mental health[2].

Citations

• [1] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-anxious-generation-jonathan-haidt/1143532841
• [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxious_Generation
• [3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/171681821-the-anxious-generation
• [4] https://jonathanhaidt.com/anxious-generation/
• [5] https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book

Claim

The subtitle of the book is 'How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness.'

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the subtitle of Jonathan Haidt's book is "How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness" is accurate. This subtitle is confirmed across multiple sources, including the official website of Jonathan Haidt and various book retailers.

Haidt's book, titled *The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness*, explores the significant decline in adolescent mental health that began in the early 2010s. He attributes this decline to two main factors: the reduction of unsupervised play (the "play-based childhood") and the rise of smartphone use (the "phone-based childhood") which has altered how children interact socially and engage with the world around them[1][3][4].

In his analysis, Haidt discusses how these changes have led to increased rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide among adolescents, emphasizing the need for a return to more traditional forms of childhood that prioritize real-world interactions and independent exploration[2][3][4]. The book is set to be published on March 26, 2024, and has already garnered attention for its critical examination of modern parenting and societal changes impacting youth mental health[1][3].

Citations

• [1] https://jonathanhaidt.com/anxious-generation/
• [2] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/180330965-the-anxious-generation-how-the-great-rewiring-of-childhood-caused-an-ep
• [3] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-anxious-generation-jonathan-haidt/1143532841
• [4] https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/faculty-research/anxious-generation-how-great-rewiring-childhood-causing-epidemic-mental-illness
• [5] https://share.libbyapp.com/title/9951400

Claim

Majority of American kids will be in phone-free schools within two years.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Majority of American Kids Will Be in Phone-Free Schools Within Two Years

The claim that the majority of American kids will be in phone-free schools within two years is a predictive statement that requires examination of current trends and legislative actions regarding cellphone use in schools.

### Current Trends and Legislation

1. **State-Level Policies**: As of March 2025, nine states have implemented state-wide policies to ban or restrict cellphone use in schools[1]. These policies vary by state, with some requiring schools to develop specific phone use policies and others implementing outright bans during instructional time[1].

2. **Bipartisan Support**: There is significant bipartisan support for cellphone bans in schools, with many states considering legislation to restrict phone use[5]. This momentum is driven by concerns about distractions and mental health impacts[5].

3. **School-Level Policies**: Beyond state-level actions, individual schools and districts are also adopting phone-free policies. For example, West Point Public Schools in Virginia implemented a cell phone-free policy effective January 2025[3].

### Prevalence of Phone Restrictions

– **Historical Context**: In 2020, cellphone bans were in place in 77% of U.S. schools, though these often allowed exceptions for class-related use[2][4]. However, these policies may not effectively restrict phone use throughout the school day[2].

– **Growing Momentum**: The recent surge in state-level legislation and school policies suggests an increasing trend towards more stringent phone restrictions[1][5].

### Predictive Analysis

While there is a growing trend towards restricting cellphone use in schools, predicting that the majority of American kids will be in phone-free schools within two years requires several factors to align:

1. **Legislative Progress**: More states would need to pass comprehensive cellphone ban legislation, and existing policies would need to be effectively enforced[5].

2. **School and District Adoption**: Individual schools and districts would need to adopt and enforce strict phone-free policies, which can be challenging due to logistical and parental concerns[3][5].

3. **Public Support**: Public support for such policies is mixed, with some parents concerned about safety and connectivity[5].

### Conclusion

Given the current momentum and bipartisan support for cellphone restrictions in schools, it is plausible that more schools will adopt phone-free policies. However, predicting that the majority of American kids will be in phone-free schools within two years is ambitious and depends on rapid legislative progress and widespread adoption by schools. While trends are moving in this direction, achieving such a widespread change within a short timeframe is uncertain without significant acceleration in policy implementation and enforcement.

**Evidence Summary**:
– **State Policies**: Nine states have implemented cellphone bans or restrictions as of March 2025[1].
– **Bipartisan Support**: There is strong bipartisan support for these policies[5].
– **School Policies**: Individual schools are also adopting phone-free policies[3].
– **Public Support**: Public opinion is divided, with concerns about safety and connectivity[5].

Citations

• [1] https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/a-look-at-state-efforts-to-ban-cellphones-in-schools-and-implications-for-youth-mental-health/
• [2] https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-free-schools
• [3] https://www.wpschools.net/article/1909246
• [4] https://livemorescreenless.org/blog/resource/the-case-for-phone-free-schools-by-jonathan-haidt/
• [5] https://www.axios.com/2025/01/16/school-cell-phone-bans-2025-legislation

Claim

40% of American two-year-olds have their own iPad.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "40% of American two-year-olds have their own iPad"

The claim that 40% of American two-year-olds have their own iPad is supported by recent research. A study by Common Sense Media, as reported by KTVU, indicates that 40% of toddlers have their own tablet device by the time they are two years old[1]. This aligns with broader trends showing increased access to mobile devices among young children.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Common Sense Media Study**: The study highlights that 40% of toddlers have their own tablet by age two, which includes devices like iPads[1]. This suggests a significant prevalence of personal device ownership among very young children.

2. **Trends in Mobile Device Access**: Research from 2013 showed a fivefold increase in tablet ownership among families with young children, rising from 8% to 40% over two years[3]. While this data is older, it demonstrates a historical trend of increasing access to tablets.

3. **General Access to Devices**: More than three-quarters of American children under eight have access to a smartphone or tablet, indicating widespread exposure to these devices[3].

### Additional Context

– **Jonathan Haidt's Work**: While not directly addressing the specific claim about iPad ownership, Haidt's work emphasizes the early exposure of children to digital devices and its implications for their development[2][4]. His concerns about the impact of screen time on children's mental health and development align with broader discussions about the role of technology in early childhood.

– **American Academy of Pediatrics Recommendations**: The AAP advises against screen time for children under 18 months, highlighting concerns about its effects on cognitive development[1]. This underscores the importance of mindful screen exposure for young children.

### Conclusion

The claim that 40% of American two-year-olds have their own iPad is supported by recent data from Common Sense Media. However, it's essential to consider the broader context of screen time and device access among young children, as well as the potential developmental implications highlighted by experts like Jonathan Haidt. While the specific focus on iPads might be less common than general tablet use, the trend of early device ownership is well-documented.

In summary, the claim is valid based on available data, but it should be interpreted within the context of broader trends in childhood technology use and its societal implications.

Citations

• [1] https://www.ktvu.com/news/toddlers-tablets-study-shows-40-kids-have-own-device-2-years-old
• [2] https://www.ncregister.com/news/the-anxious-generation-jonathan-haidt-ashley-mcguire
• [3] https://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/12042/75-of-american-children-under-8-have-access-to-a-smartphone-or-tablet
• [4] https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/jonathan-haidt-shares-worrying-stats-about-toddler-screen-time.html
• [5] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/california-00325%C2%A0/00325-82243.pdf

Claim

50% of American teens say they are online almost constantly.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: 50% of American Teens Say They Are Online Almost Constantly

The claim that "50% of American teens say they are online almost constantly" can be evaluated using recent surveys and studies on youth internet usage.

### Evidence and Findings

1. **Pew Research Center (2022)**: According to Pew Research, 46% of U.S. teens reported using the internet almost constantly, which is close to the claimed figure of 50%[1][5]. This percentage has increased significantly since 2014-15, when only about a quarter of teens reported such frequent internet use[1].

2. **Statista (2023)**: A survey conducted in 2023 found that half of the teenagers between 15 and 17 years old used the internet almost constantly, aligning with the claim for this specific age group[3]. However, the overall figure for all teens aged 13-17 was slightly lower, at 46%[3].

3. **CBS News (2024)**: While CBS News reports that nearly half of U.S. teenagers say they are online almost constantly, it does not provide a precise figure to confirm the exact percentage[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that "50% of American teens say they are online almost constantly" is partially supported by recent data. While the overall figure for all U.S. teens is slightly lower at 46%, specific age groups like those between 15 and 17 years old do reach around 50%[1][3]. Therefore, the claim is generally accurate but may vary slightly depending on the specific demographic or survey referenced.

### Recommendations for Future Claims

– **Specify Age Groups**: When making claims about internet usage, it's crucial to specify the age range of the teens being referred to, as usage patterns can vary significantly.
– **Cite Recent Surveys**: Ensure that claims are supported by the most recent and reliable surveys to reflect current trends accurately.
– **Consider Demographic Variations**: Acknowledge differences in internet usage among various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, as these can influence overall statistics[1][5].

Citations

• [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/
• [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/nearly-half-us-teenagers-online-almost-constantly-survey/
• [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1453764/us-teen-internet-use-constantly-by-age/
• [4] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/24/teens-and-social-media-key-findings-from-pew-research-center-surveys/
• [5] https://actforyouth.net/adolescence/demographics/internet.cfm

Claim

Children raised on iPads come with language delays and social problems according to pre-K teachers.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Children Raised on iPads Come with Language Delays and Social Problems

The claim that children raised on iPads experience language delays and social problems aligns with several studies and expert opinions regarding the impact of excessive screen time on child development. Here's a detailed analysis based on available research:

### Language Delays

1. **Research Findings**: Studies have consistently shown that increased screen time, especially in early childhood, is associated with delayed language development. For instance, a meta-analysis linked greater screen exposure during infancy to lower language skills at ages 3 to 4[1]. Another study found that toddlers who were exposed to more handheld screen time were more likely to have delayed expressive language skills[4].

2. **Mechanisms**: The primary mechanism behind this delay is the reduction in quality and quantity of interactions between children and caregivers. Human interaction is crucial for language acquisition, and excessive screen time diminishes these opportunities[5].

### Social Problems

1. **Social Skills Development**: Excessive screen time can interfere with social skills development by reducing opportunities for face-to-face interactions and play, which are essential for learning social cues and developing emotional intelligence[3][5].

2. **Behavioral Issues**: Research indicates that excessive screen time is linked to behavioral problems, including externalizing behaviors and psychosocial difficulties. For example, children who used apps for more than 30 minutes per day had lower inhibition scores[1].

### Educational and Psychological Perspectives

1. **Educational Impact**: While screens can enhance education when used appropriately, excessive screen time is associated with lower academic performance and cognitive abilities. This is partly due to the displacement of other learning activities and the potential for structural brain changes related to excessive screen exposure[3][5].

2. **Psychological Effects**: The psychological impact of excessive screen time includes increased risks of anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances. These effects can be exacerbated by the lack of real-world interactions and physical activities[2][5].

### Conclusion

The claim that children raised on iPads experience language delays and social problems is supported by substantial evidence from educational and psychological studies. Excessive screen time, particularly in early childhood, is linked to developmental delays, including language acquisition and social skills development. It is crucial for parents and educators to manage screen time effectively and ensure that children engage in a balanced mix of screen-based learning and real-world interactions.

**Recommendations**:
– **Limit Screen Time**: Follow guidelines from organizations like the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommend limited screen time for young children[4].
– **Encourage Real-World Interactions**: Prioritize activities that promote social engagement, physical activity, and cognitive development through play and exploration[3][5].
– **Co-Viewing and Quality Content**: When screen time is used, ensure it is high-quality content and engage in co-viewing to enhance learning and interaction[5].

Citations

• [1] https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/screen-time-and-preschool-children
• [2] https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/the-generation-of-ipad-kids-the-nightmare-of-educators/
• [3] https://healthmatters.nyp.org/what-does-too-much-screen-time-do-to-childrens-brains/
• [4] https://www.hanen.org/information-tips/the-effects-of-screen-time-on-young-children
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10353947/

Claim

If we have 10-year-olds on TikTok until they're 18, there's a possibility that it will cause permanent changes to their ability to pay attention.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that prolonged exposure to TikTok from age 10 to 18 could lead to permanent changes in attention span is supported by emerging research and expert opinions. This assertion aligns with concerns raised in discussions about the impact of social media on youth, particularly in the context of Jonathan Haidt's observations on modern childhood and technology use.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Research Findings**: A study conducted by researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences found a negative correlation between short video usage (like that on TikTok) and academic performance, mediated by reduced attention spans. The study indicated that higher usage of short video platforms was associated with difficulties in maintaining focus on academic tasks, suggesting that excessive screen time could impair cognitive functions related to attention[1].

2. **Attention Span Decline**: Dr. Gloria Mark's research highlights a significant decline in attention spans over the years. In 2004, the average attention span was over two and a half minutes, which dropped to 46 seconds by 2024. This decline is attributed to the rapid switching between tasks and the consumption of short-form content, which is characteristic of platforms like TikTok[3]. The phenomenon termed "TikTok brain" describes how the platform's design encourages quick gratification, making it challenging for users, especially children, to engage in activities requiring sustained attention[5].

3. **Psychological Impact**: Experts argue that the addictive nature of TikTok's algorithm, which delivers a constant stream of engaging content, activates the brain's reward system, leading to a preference for instant gratification. This can hinder the development of "directed attention," a skill necessary for focusing on tasks that do not provide immediate rewards[5]. The implications of this are particularly concerning for children, whose brains are still developing and are more susceptible to these changes.

4. **Legal and Societal Concerns**: There is growing legal scrutiny regarding TikTok's impact on youth mental health, with lawsuits alleging that the platform's design is harmful and addictive. These legal actions reflect a broader societal concern about the mental health crisis among young people, which has been linked to excessive social media use, including increased rates of anxiety and depression[2][4].

### Conclusion

The evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to TikTok during formative years could indeed lead to lasting changes in attention span and cognitive function. The combination of reduced attention spans, the addictive nature of the platform, and the broader implications for mental health underscores the potential risks associated with allowing children to engage with such platforms extensively. As discussions around childhood development and technology continue, it is crucial to consider these findings in shaping policies and parental guidelines regarding screen time for young users.

Citations

• [1] https://www.psypost.org/new-tiktok-research-short-video-use-linked-to-lower-academic-performance-in-children/
• [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHlEP1w2WOc
• [3] https://www.thenewpolitical.com/opinion/ipmxx8wm3dbadqoai1msf6w1if0145
• [4] https://socialmediavictims.org/tiktok-lawsuit/
• [5] https://theweek.com/health-and-wellness/1025836/tiktok-brain-and-attention-spans

Claim

Legislation is needed to establish an age of internet adulthood.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Legislation is Needed to Establish an Age of Internet Adulthood

The claim that legislation is needed to establish an age of internet adulthood is rooted in concerns about children's online safety and the impact of digital media on their development. This discussion is influenced by works like Jonathan Haidt's "The Anxious Generation," which highlights the negative effects of excessive smartphone use on youth mental health[2]. Here, we will examine the validity of this claim by considering current legislative efforts, the challenges of age verification, and the potential consequences of such legislation.

### Current Legislative Efforts

1. **Australia's Approach**: Australia has proposed legislation setting a minimum age of 16 for creating social media accounts, aiming to protect young people from harmful content and ensure companies enforce age restrictions[2]. This move reflects a growing recognition that the current age of 13, established by the U.S. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), may be too low[2].

2. **U.S. State Laws**: In the U.S., various states have introduced or proposed laws requiring age verification to restrict minors' access to adult content. For example, Utah's law mandates age verification using facial recognition technology, while Texas's law requires verification for accessing sexual content[5]. These laws face challenges regarding privacy and First Amendment rights[5].

### Challenges of Age Verification

1. **Privacy Concerns**: Age verification processes, especially those involving personal data like photo IDs, raise significant privacy concerns. Such systems can expose users to risks of data misuse and surveillance[3][5].

2. **Technical Challenges**: Implementing effective age verification is technically complex. Many proposed methods, such as facial recognition, are invasive and may not be accessible to all users[5].

3. **Potential for an Adults-Only Internet**: The introduction of age verification could lead platforms to opt for an adults-only approach, denying access to children to avoid compliance complexities. This unintended consequence highlights the need for careful consideration of the internet's intended audience and the balance between child protection and access rights[1].

### Potential Consequences of Legislation

1. **Impact on Children's Access**: Establishing a higher age of internet adulthood could limit children's access to educational and social resources online, potentially hindering their digital literacy and social development[4].

2. **Effectiveness in Safeguarding Children**: While legislation aims to protect children, tech-savvy minors can often circumvent age verification systems using tools like VPNs[3]. This suggests that parental involvement and education may be more effective in ensuring children's online safety.

3. **Balancing Rights**: Legislation must balance children's protection with adults' rights to access information and express themselves online. Overly restrictive laws could infringe upon adults' First Amendment rights[3][5].

### Conclusion

The claim that legislation is needed to establish an age of internet adulthood is supported by concerns about children's online safety and the impact of digital media on youth. However, implementing such legislation poses significant challenges, including privacy risks, technical complexities, and potential unintended consequences like an adults-only internet. A balanced approach that considers both child protection and adult rights is crucial. Federal legislation, such as a standardized child-flag system, might offer a more effective and less burdensome solution than the current patchwork of state laws[5]. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any legislation will depend on its ability to adapt to evolving digital landscapes while safeguarding both children and adults' rights.

Citations

• [1] https://www.promarket.org/2024/04/12/are-we-tumbling-toward-an-adults-only-internet/
• [2] https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-australia-is-setting-a-minimum
• [3] https://www.aclu-wy.org/en/news/age-verification-bill-will-not-keep-your-kids-safer-will-risk-privacy
• [4] https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/globalassets/ysc001-014.pdf
• [5] https://itif.org/publications/2025/02/05/congress-should-lead-way-in-childrens-online-safety-access-adult-content/

Claim

AI will have a significant impact on life after 2025.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that AI will have a significant impact on life after 2025 is supported by a variety of trends and predictions regarding the evolution of artificial intelligence technologies and their societal implications.

## Societal Transformations Driven by AI

**Economic Impact**
AI is projected to contribute significantly to global economic growth, with estimates suggesting it could add up to $15.7 trillion to the economy by 2030. This growth is expected to stem from increased productivity and the creation of new job opportunities across various sectors, despite concerns about job displacement in certain fields[5]. As AI technologies become more integrated into business operations, they will enhance automation, streamline processes, and improve decision-making through data analysis[3].

**Healthcare Advancements**
In healthcare, AI is already transforming patient care through improved diagnostics and personalized treatment plans. Future developments may include AI-assisted surgeries and enhanced administrative efficiencies, which could lead to better health outcomes and reduced costs[5]. The potential for AI to revolutionize healthcare is significant, suggesting that its impact will be felt widely in this sector post-2025.

**Education and Workforce Evolution**
AI's role in education is also expected to grow, with applications that tailor learning experiences to individual student needs. This could reshape educational methodologies and improve learning outcomes[3]. Furthermore, as AI takes over more routine tasks, the workforce will need to adapt, emphasizing the importance of upskilling and reskilling to meet new job demands[3][5].

## Ethical and Social Considerations

**Privacy and Surveillance**
The integration of AI into daily life raises concerns about privacy and data security. As AI systems collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data, issues related to surveillance and the potential for misuse of information will become increasingly pressing[1]. The societal implications of these technologies, particularly regarding individual rights and freedoms, will need to be addressed as AI becomes more prevalent.

**Cultural Shifts**
The societal reliance on technology, including AI, is already influencing cultural norms and behaviors, particularly among younger generations. The discussions surrounding Jonathan Haidt's "The Anxious Generation" highlight concerns about the impact of digital technologies on mental health and social interactions. As AI continues to shape communication and social engagement, these cultural dynamics will likely evolve, potentially leading to a backlash against excessive reliance on technology[2][4].

## Conclusion

In summary, the assertion that AI will significantly impact life after 2025 is well-founded based on current trends in economic growth, healthcare advancements, and educational transformations. However, these benefits come with challenges, particularly regarding ethical considerations and societal changes. As AI technologies continue to develop, their influence will permeate various aspects of life, necessitating ongoing dialogue about their implications for future generations.

Citations

• [1] https://bernardmarr.com/what-is-the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-on-society/
• [2] https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1896921/FULLTEXT01.pdf
• [3] https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/artificial-intelligence-future
• [4] https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.coecis.cornell.edu/dist/4/371/files/2024/12/The-Augmented-City.pdf
• [5] https://online.uc.edu/blog/artificial-intelligence-ai-benefits/

Claim

The governor of Utah has signed a sweeping bill to limit children's access to social media.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Utah Governor Signs Bill to Limit Children's Access to Social Media

The claim that the governor of Utah has signed a sweeping bill to limit children's access to social media can be verified through recent legislative actions and news reports. Here's a detailed analysis based on available evidence:

### Legislative Actions

1. **HB311 and SB152 (2023):** In March 2023, Governor Spencer Cox signed two bills aimed at protecting minors from social media harms. HB311 prohibited social media companies from using addictive features for minors, while SB152 required age verification for users under 18, necessitating parental consent for minors to create accounts[1].

2. **App Store Accountability Act (SB142, 2025):** Recently, Governor Cox signed the App Store Accountability Act, which mandates app stores like Apple and Google to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors. This law categorizes users into age groups and ensures that minors' accounts are linked to a parent's account[2][5].

3. **HB464 and SB194 (2024):** Although not directly mentioned in the claim, these bills further emphasize Utah's efforts to regulate social media. HB464 holds social media companies accountable for mental health issues caused by their platforms, while SB194 aims to block harmful features and protect minors' privacy[3].

### Analysis

– **Age Verification and Parental Consent:** The laws passed in Utah, particularly SB152 and SB142, focus on age verification and parental consent, which directly limit children's unsupervised access to social media and apps[1][2].

– **Protection from Addictive Features:** Bills like HB311 and SB194 target the removal of addictive features on social media platforms, further limiting the potential for excessive use by minors[1][3].

– **Legal and Regulatory Implications:** These laws provide legal avenues for parents to sue social media companies if they fail to comply with the regulations, adding a layer of accountability[1][3].

### Conclusion

The claim is **verified**. Utah has indeed enacted legislation aimed at limiting children's access to social media by requiring age verification, parental consent, and removing addictive features. These efforts reflect a broader concern about the impact of social media on youth mental health and well-being.

### Evidence and References

– [1] Gov. Cox signs bills focused on social media and youth mental health.
– [2] Utah's App Store Accountability Act requires age verification for app downloads.
– [3] Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act details.
– [4] Analysis of Utah's age verification bill.
– [5] Utah Governor signs the App Store Accountability Act.

This legislative action aligns with discussions about the need to protect children from excessive screen time and promote healthier childhood experiences, as highlighted in Jonathan Haidt's work and broader societal debates.

Citations

• [1] https://governor.utah.gov/press/gov-cox-signs-bills-focused-on-social-media-in-utah/
• [2] https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/03/27/utah-governor-cox-signs-law-requiring-apple-and-google-to-verify-age-of-user-before-downloading-apps/
• [3] https://socialmedia.utah.gov
• [4] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/12/utah-legislature-passes-completely-unworkable-app-store-age-verification-bill/
• [5] https://petapixel.com/2025/03/31/utah-governor-signs-first-of-its-kind-online-child-safety-law/

Claim

By the time my three and six year old are in middle school, we will have figured out the smartphones and social media in schools question.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that by the time your three and six-year-olds reach middle school, society will have resolved the issues surrounding smartphones and social media in schools is optimistic but may not fully align with current trends and developments in educational policy and technology use.

### Current Trends in Smartphone Use in Schools

1. **Legislative Actions**: Several states, including New York and Virginia, are actively implementing or proposing restrictions on smartphone use in schools. New York's Governor Hochul has introduced a plan to restrict smartphone use throughout the school day, emphasizing the need for distraction-free learning environments. This proposal includes funding for schools to develop their own implementation plans and storage solutions for smartphones[1]. Similarly, Virginia has enacted a comprehensive cellphone ban for public schools, effective January 1, 2025, which prohibits students from using their phones during school hours, including lunch and between classes[5].

2. **Educational Research**: Research indicates that excessive smartphone use can negatively impact students' academic performance and social interactions. Studies have shown that high smartphone usage correlates with distractions that hinder learning and can impede healthy socialization among peers[3][4]. This has led to a growing consensus among educators and policymakers that schools need to establish clearer guidelines on smartphone usage to foster better educational outcomes.

3. **Digital Citizenship Education**: There is a recognized need for teaching digital citizenship to help students navigate the complexities of social media and technology responsibly. Some educational frameworks are beginning to incorporate digital citizenship into curricula, aiming to equip students with the skills necessary to manage their online presence and interactions positively[2]. However, the integration of such programs is still in its infancy, and many schools may not be fully prepared to implement comprehensive digital citizenship education by the time your children reach middle school.

### Challenges Ahead

– **Cultural Resistance**: While there is a push for stricter regulations, there is also significant resistance from students who feel that outright bans are excessive. Many students rely on their smartphones for educational purposes, such as collaborating on projects and accessing information. This duality creates a challenge for schools to find a balanced approach that addresses both educational needs and mental health concerns related to social media use[5].

– **Evolving Technology Landscape**: As technology continues to evolve, so too will the challenges associated with its use in educational settings. The rapid advancement of AI and social media platforms means that schools will need to continually adapt their policies and educational strategies to keep pace with new developments and their implications for student well-being.

### Conclusion

While there is a clear movement towards addressing the challenges posed by smartphones and social media in educational environments, it is uncertain whether these issues will be fully resolved by the time your children reach middle school. The ongoing legislative efforts, coupled with the need for effective digital citizenship education, indicate that schools are beginning to take these concerns seriously. However, the complexity of the issues and the mixed responses from students suggest that a comprehensive solution may still be years away.

Citations

• [1] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-unveils-plan-restrict-smartphone-use-schools-statewide-and-ensure-distraction
• [2] https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3607&context=dissertations
• [3] https://manhattan.institute/article/model-legislation-to-restrict-smartphone-use-in-k-12-public-schools
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9651103/
• [5] https://thesocialinstitute.com/blog/why-innovative-schools-are-choosing-to-empower-students-to-use-tech-for-good-amidst-new-laws-like-virginias-new-cellphone-ban/

Claim

AI is going to be so good at being a responsive partner that it could affect people's expectations of human relationships.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: AI's Impact on Human Relationship Expectations

The claim that AI will become so responsive as a partner that it could affect people's expectations of human relationships is supported by various studies and analyses. Here's a detailed evaluation of this assertion:

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **AI Personalization and Unrealistic Expectations**: AI interactions can be tailored to user preferences, potentially creating unrealistic expectations for human relationships. People may become accustomed to instant gratification and conflict-free interactions, making real-world relationships seem more challenging[3]. This suggests that as AI becomes more sophisticated, it could indeed influence what people expect from human relationships.

2. **AI Companions and Emotional Support**: AI systems like Replika offer personalized emotional support, which can fulfill emotional needs without the complexity of human relationships[1]. This could lead to a shift in how people perceive and engage in human relationships, as they may compare the ease and predictability of AI interactions with the unpredictability of human connections.

3. **Impact on Social Skills and Communication**: Frequent interaction with AI may affect people's ability to read social cues and engage in nuanced human communication[3]. This could further alter expectations of human relationships by making them seem less appealing or more difficult compared to AI interactions.

### Potential Societal Impacts

– **Loneliness and Isolation**: While AI can provide companionship, overreliance on these systems may lead to increased feelings of loneliness and social isolation[3]. This paradox highlights the complex role AI plays in reshaping social dynamics.

– **Ethical Considerations**: The use of AI in relationships raises ethical concerns, including privacy, consent, and exploitation[1]. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure that AI enhances rather than diminishes human relationships.

### Conclusion

The claim that AI's responsiveness could affect people's expectations of human relationships is supported by evidence. AI's ability to provide personalized interactions and emotional support can create unrealistic expectations for human relationships, potentially altering how people perceive and engage in social interactions. However, it's essential to balance the benefits of AI with the need for meaningful human connections to avoid negative societal impacts.

### Recommendations for Future Research

1. **Longitudinal Studies**: Conducting longitudinal studies to assess the long-term effects of AI interactions on human relationship expectations and social skills.
2. **Ethical Frameworks**: Developing ethical frameworks for AI development that prioritize transparency, consent, and human well-being.
3. **Education and Awareness**: Promoting education about the impact of AI on relationships to foster a balanced approach to technology use.

Citations

• [1] https://www.sacap.edu.za/blog/applied-psychology/perspectives-on-ai-relationships/
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10073210/
• [3] https://www.francescatabor.com/articles/2024/8/3/ai-and-human-interaction-reshaping-relationships-in-the-digital-age
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10116477/
• [5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202406/how-artificial-intelligence-is-reshaping-relationships

Claim

In two or three years, AI will be integrated into childhood in a way that makes it very hard to remove.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: AI Integration in Childhood

The claim suggests that within two to three years, AI will become deeply integrated into childhood, making it challenging to remove. This assertion warrants an examination of current trends and potential outcomes of AI integration in children's lives.

### Current Trends in AI Integration

1. **Growing Presence in Education**: AI is increasingly used in early childhood education, with nearly a third of parents reporting their children use AI for school-related learning[4]. This trend indicates a rapid integration of AI into educational settings.

2. **Parental Concerns and Benefits**: While many parents are concerned about screen time and AI's impact on children, they also recognize its potential benefits for learning and connection[4]. This dual perspective highlights the complexity of AI integration.

3. **Technological Advancements**: AI tools are becoming more sophisticated, offering personalized learning experiences and enhancing digital literacy[1][2]. These advancements suggest that AI will continue to play a significant role in children's lives.

### Potential Outcomes

1. **Cognitive and Social Development**: Excessive reliance on AI can lead to underdeveloped social skills, attention problems, and reduced critical thinking abilities[1][3]. However, balanced use can enhance digital literacy and creativity[1][2].

2. **Mental Health Implications**: AI-driven screen time may hinder social and emotional development, potentially affecting mental health[3]. Conversely, AI can also facilitate family connections and support networks[3].

3. **Dependence on Technology**: Over-reliance on AI for problem-solving can lead to dependency and diminished critical thinking skills[5]. However, when used responsibly, AI can be a valuable educational tool[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that AI will become deeply integrated into childhood within two to three years is plausible given the current pace of technological advancements and its increasing presence in education. However, the long-term implications of this integration are complex and multifaceted. While AI offers benefits such as enhanced learning and creativity, it also poses risks like social isolation and dependency on technology. Therefore, it is crucial for parents, educators, and policymakers to ensure that AI is integrated responsibly, balancing its benefits with the need for real-world interactions and healthy development.

**Evidence and References:**

– **Growing AI Integration**: The use of AI in early childhood education is on the rise, with significant parental involvement[4].
– **Potential Outcomes**: AI can both enhance and hinder cognitive and social development depending on usage patterns[1][3].
– **Dependence and Critical Thinking**: Over-reliance on AI can lead to diminished critical thinking skills, emphasizing the need for balanced use[5].

Citations

• [1] https://plat.ai/blog/early-ai-exposure-on-kids-cognitive-development/
• [2] https://www.mobicip.com/blog/ai-kids-online-benefits-risks
• [3] https://www.healthactionresearch.org.uk/selected-blogs/ai-and-family-mental-health/
• [4] https://newschannel9.com/news/nation-world/parents-balance-benefits-and-risks-of-ai-in-early-childhood-learning-artificial-intelligence-school
• [5] https://slpecho.com/opinion/2024/12/18/pcp-long-term-impacts-of-ai/

Claim

Children are losing the ability to draw and write as a result of technology like AI.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that children are losing the ability to draw and write as a result of technology like AI is a complex issue that involves both the cognitive effects of technology on children's developmental skills and broader societal changes in childhood and parenting. Here's a detailed evaluation of this claim based on available evidence:

## Cognitive Effects of Technology on Children

1. **Impact on Cognitive Skills**: Research indicates that excessive use of digital technology, including AI tools, can have both positive and negative effects on children's cognitive development. While AI can enhance digital literacy and provide educational benefits, overreliance on these tools can lead to reduced attention spans, lower academic performance, and socio-emotional challenges due to limited social interactions[2][4]. However, there is no specific evidence that AI directly causes children to lose the ability to draw or write.

2. **Social and Emotional Development**: AI technologies lack the depth of true human interaction, which is crucial for developing social skills like empathy and communication. Overusing AI can impede a child's ability to develop self-soothing techniques and emotional resilience[2]. This suggests that while AI might not directly affect drawing or writing skills, it can impact broader developmental areas.

3. **Creativity and AI**: Studies on how AI affects children's creativity show that AI tools can be used to augment creative processes rather than replace them. Children can use AI as a tool to explore ideas, but they often need adult support to integrate AI effectively into their creative work[3]. This implies that AI can be a tool for enhancing creativity, including drawing and writing, if used appropriately.

## Impact on Drawing and Writing Skills

– **Drawing Skills**: There is limited direct research on how AI specifically impacts children's drawing skills. However, the general concern about excessive screen time and reduced physical activity could imply that children might spend less time engaging in traditional drawing activities[4].

– **Writing Skills**: AI tools like ChatGPT can assist in writing by providing instant feedback and helping students organize ideas. However, there is a risk that overreliance on AI could reduce critical thinking and independent writing skills[5]. Children who use AI for writing might still develop their writing abilities but could struggle with originality and depth if they rely too heavily on AI-generated content[1][5].

## Conclusion

The claim that children are losing the ability to draw and write due to technology like AI is not entirely supported by direct evidence. While AI and digital technologies can have significant impacts on cognitive and social development, the effects on specific skills like drawing and writing are more nuanced. AI can be a useful tool for enhancing these skills if used responsibly and in conjunction with traditional methods. The broader concerns about technology's impact on childhood development highlight the need for balanced exposure to digital tools and traditional activities to ensure healthy development.

In summary, while AI and technology can influence children's development, the claim about losing drawing and writing skills is more related to broader societal and parenting changes rather than a direct effect of AI on these specific skills.

**Recommendations for Parents and Educators**:
– **Balance Technology Use**: Encourage children to engage in a mix of digital and non-digital activities to maintain a healthy balance.
– **Guided AI Use**: Teach children how to use AI tools effectively as aids for learning, rather than relying solely on them.
– **Emphasize Traditional Skills**: Ensure that children have opportunities to practice drawing and writing without relying on technology.

Citations

• [1] https://hechingerreport.org/how-ai-can-teach-kids-to-write-not-just-cheat/
• [2] https://plat.ai/blog/early-ai-exposure-on-kids-cognitive-development/
• [3] https://www.washington.edu/news/2024/05/29/ai-kids-creativity-chatgpt/
• [4] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cognition/articles/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077/full
• [5] https://lessonpal.com/blog/post/ai-in-education-how-will-it-change-the-way-kids-learn-to-write

Claim

Silicon Valley has a horrible track record at living up to its promises, especially for kids.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Silicon Valley's Track Record on Promises for Kids

The claim that Silicon Valley has a horrible track record at living up to its promises, especially for kids, can be examined through several lenses, including the impact of technology on children's development and wellbeing, and the practices of tech industry leaders regarding their own children.

### Impact of Technology on Children

1. **Addictive Design and Psychological Effects**: Silicon Valley companies are known for designing products that are highly engaging and addictive. This has raised concerns about the psychological impact on children, including increased risks of anxiety, depression, and decreased attention span[1][2]. Studies suggest that excessive screen time is linked to negative outcomes such as increased risk of depression and suicide among teens[5].

2. **Ethical Concerns and Accountability**: The tech industry often shifts the responsibility for managing children's screen time to parents, despite employing strategies to maximize user engagement[2]. This raises ethical questions about the industry's commitment to children's wellbeing.

3. **Sleep Deprivation and Health Impacts**: Excessive screen time can lead to sleep deprivation, which is crucial for healthy development in children[5]. The blue light emitted by smartphones and tablets further exacerbates this issue[5].

### Practices of Tech Industry Leaders

1. **Restrictive Screen Time Policies**: Many Silicon Valley executives and parents limit or ban screen time for their children, reflecting a concern about the potential harm of excessive technology use[1][3][4]. For example, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates restricted their children's access to technology[4][5].

2. **Promoting Alternative Activities**: These parents often encourage alternative activities such as board games, outdoor play, and reading, suggesting a belief in the value of non-tech experiences for healthy development[3][4].

### Conclusion

While Silicon Valley has undoubtedly contributed to technological advancements that can benefit children, such as educational tools and connectivity, the industry's approach to designing addictive products and its lack of comprehensive measures to protect children's wellbeing raise valid concerns. The practices of tech leaders themselves, who often restrict technology use for their own children, underscore these concerns. Therefore, the claim that Silicon Valley has a poor track record in living up to its promises for kids is supported by evidence of the negative impacts of technology on children's development and the industry's own cautious approach to technology use among their families.

### Recommendations for Improvement

1. **Ethical Design Standards**: Implementing ethical design standards that prioritize children's wellbeing over engagement metrics could help mitigate negative impacts.

2. **Parental Education and Support**: Providing parents with better tools and education on managing screen time and promoting healthy digital habits can help balance technology use with other aspects of childhood development.

3. **Regulatory Oversight**: Encouraging regulatory oversight to ensure that tech companies are held accountable for the impact of their products on children could lead to more responsible innovation.

Citations

• [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-kids-tech-free-red-flag-2018-2
• [2] https://5rightsfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/5rights_DisruptedChildhood_G.pdf
• [3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/silicon-valley-parents-are-raising-their-kids-tech-free/
• [4] https://www.mobicip.com/blog/silicon-valley-leaders-restrict-their-childrens-phone-usage-so-should-you
• [5] https://wezift.com/parent-portal/blog/why-tech-ceos-raise-their-kids-tech-free/

Claim

Parents in Silicon Valley send their kids to Waldorf school to keep them away from social media and technology.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Parents in Silicon Valley Send Their Kids to Waldorf School to Keep Them Away from Social Media and Technology

### Overview

The claim that parents in Silicon Valley send their children to Waldorf schools to keep them away from social media and technology can be evaluated by examining the educational choices of these parents and the philosophy of Waldorf schools.

### Waldorf Schools and Technology Use

Waldorf schools are known for their holistic approach to education, emphasizing artistic expression, experiential learning, and limited technology use. This philosophy is inspired by Rudolf Steiner and focuses on cultivating children's intellectual, spiritual, and creative abilities through hands-on activities and imaginative exercises[2][5]. In Waldorf schools, technology and screens are not used until the 8th grade, and even then, their use is limited[1][5].

### Silicon Valley Parents and Waldorf Schools

Many Silicon Valley parents, including those working for tech giants like Google, Apple, and Intel, choose to send their children to Waldorf schools. This trend is notable because these parents are often associated with the development and promotion of technology[1][2]. The choice to enroll their children in tech-light schools suggests that these parents value a different kind of education for their children, one that emphasizes human interaction, creativity, and physical activity over screen time[4][5].

### Motivations Behind This Choice

While the claim specifically mentions avoiding social media and technology, the broader motivations of these parents include fostering creativity, intellectual growth, and social skills in their children. They often believe that excessive exposure to technology at a young age can hinder these developmental aspects[2][4]. Additionally, there is a cultural narrative that tech-savvy parents might have a deeper understanding of the potential risks associated with early technology exposure, though this narrative has been critiqued for oversimplification[3].

### Conclusion

The claim that Silicon Valley parents send their children to Waldorf schools to keep them away from social media and technology is supported by evidence. These parents often choose Waldorf schools for their low-tech approach, which aligns with their values of promoting holistic development and minimizing early exposure to screens[1][2][5]. However, it's essential to note that the motivations behind this choice are multifaceted and not solely about avoiding technology.

### Evidence Summary

– **Waldorf Philosophy**: Emphasizes holistic education with limited technology use[1][2].
– **Parental Choices**: Silicon Valley parents choose Waldorf schools for their tech-light approach[1][5].
– **Motivations**: Include fostering creativity, social skills, and minimizing early technology exposure[2][4].
– **Cultural Narrative**: Tech-savvy parents may have a nuanced view of technology's role in childhood[3].

Citations

• [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZ-fuWdz8M
• [2] https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/digital-parents-and-low-tech-schools/
• [3] https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-smartest-people-in-the-room-what-silicon-valleys-supposed-obsession-with-tech-free-private-schools-really-tells-us
• [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7o2OyK6N7I
• [5] https://kidlogger.net/blog/school-without-computers.html

Claim

Education towards being a plumber may be safer than being a contract lawyer due to the rise of AI.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that education towards being a plumber may be safer than being a contract lawyer due to the rise of AI, we need to consider the impact of AI on both professions and assess the job market stability and future prospects for each.

## Impact of AI on Contract Lawyers

1. **Automation and Efficiency**: AI is transforming the legal profession by automating tasks such as document review, contract analysis, and legal research. This can significantly reduce the time lawyers spend on these tasks, allowing them to focus on higher-value work[1][3][5]. However, while AI enhances productivity, it also poses challenges for certain roles within the legal sector, particularly those involving repetitive tasks[3][5].

2. **Job Transformation**: Instead of replacing lawyers entirely, AI is more likely to transform their roles. Legal professionals will need to acquire new skills, such as adapting to change, problem-solving, and creativity, to work effectively with AI tools[1][3]. This transformation could lead to new career paths and opportunities within the legal industry[3].

3. **Future Prospects**: The legal profession is expected to see a shift away from hourly billing models due to AI's efficiency gains, potentially leading to more strategic and advisory roles for lawyers[1]. However, there are concerns about job displacement for certain support roles[3][5].

## Impact of AI on Plumbers

1. **Limited Automation**: Plumbing is a hands-on profession that involves physical work and problem-solving, making it less susceptible to automation by AI. While AI can assist in diagnostics and planning, the actual work of plumbing requires human intervention[3].

2. **Job Stability**: Given the physical nature of plumbing, it is less likely to be significantly impacted by AI in terms of job replacement. Plumbers will continue to be needed for installation, maintenance, and repair tasks that require manual skills[3].

3. **Future Prospects**: The demand for plumbers is generally stable due to the essential nature of their work. As infrastructure ages and new construction projects arise, plumbers will remain in demand[3].

## Conclusion

The claim that education towards being a plumber may be safer than being a contract lawyer due to the rise of AI has some validity. While AI is transforming the legal profession by automating certain tasks and potentially displacing some roles, plumbing remains a profession with less risk of automation due to its hands-on nature. However, both professions will evolve with technological advancements, and adaptability will be key for success in either field.

In terms of job market stability, plumbing appears to offer more resistance to AI-driven changes compared to contract law, where AI is already significantly impacting workflows and roles. Nonetheless, both fields require continuous learning and adaptation to new technologies and market demands.

**Evidence Summary**:
– **Legal Profession**: AI automates tasks, transforms roles, and creates new career paths but poses risks for certain support roles[1][3][5].
– **Plumbing Profession**: Less susceptible to AI automation due to its physical nature, offering more job stability[3].

Citations

• [1] https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/how-ai-is-transforming-the-legal-profession/
• [2] https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/accesstojusticecommission/Innovations-for-Justice.pdf
• [3] https://www.elitelegalmarketing.com/how-will-ai-affect-the-legal-industry/
• [4] https://media.fupress.com/files/pdf/24/2938/2938_7911
• [5] https://nationaljurist.com/smartlawyer/the-future-of-artificial-intelligence-and-legal-careers/

Claim

We have to assume that these AI companions will be very bad for our children.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that AI companions will be very bad for children reflects a cautious perspective on the role of AI in child development. This stance is supported by several concerns and risks associated with AI companions, which are discussed below:

## Benefits of AI Companions

1. **Social Skills and Emotional Support**: AI-powered virtual companions can enhance children's social skills, self-esteem, and emotional well-being by offering personalized interactions and emotional support[1]. They can provide a sense of companionship, which may help mitigate loneliness.

2. **Mental Health Support**: AI-assisted mental health tools, such as chatbots, can offer accessible and timely support for children dealing with anxiety and depression, potentially reducing symptoms[1].

## Risks and Concerns

1. **Misinformation and Harmful Content**: AI companions can share harmful content, distort reality, and provide dangerous advice, which can be particularly risky for children who lack critical thinking skills to discern truth from fiction[2][4].

2. **Dependency and Social Withdrawal**: Excessive use of AI companions can lead to dependency, reducing time spent on genuine social interactions and potentially exacerbating feelings of loneliness and low self-esteem[2][4].

3. **Unhealthy Relationships and Boundaries**: Relationships with AI lack boundaries and consequences, which may confuse children about mutual respect and consent, impacting their ability to form healthy relationships[2].

4. **Privacy and Security Risks**: AI companions can pose significant privacy and security risks if not properly regulated, including breaches of sensitive information and exposure to predators[2][4].

5. **Distorted Reality and Identity**: AI companions can create compelling but unrealistic relationships, potentially leading to distorted self-perceptions and identities among young users[5].

## Conclusion

While AI companions offer potential benefits in addressing loneliness and supporting mental health, the risks associated with their use—such as misinformation, dependency, and distorted relationships—substantiate a cautious stance. It is crucial to ensure that AI companions are used responsibly, with safeguards in place to protect children's well-being and prevent potential harms. Parents and caregivers should monitor interactions, set limits, and encourage balanced use alongside real-world social experiences[2][5]. Therefore, the claim that AI companions could be very bad for children is valid in the context of these risks, but it also highlights the need for responsible development and use of AI technologies to mitigate these concerns.

In summary, while AI companions have potential benefits, their risks necessitate careful consideration and management to ensure they complement, rather than replace, human interactions and support healthy child development.

Citations

• [1] https://www.ktdoctor.com/how-ai-can-impact-childhood-loneliness/
• [2] https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/blogs/ai-chatbots-and-companions-risks-to-children-and-young-people
• [3] https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/what-do-parents-need-to-know-about-ai-character-chatbots
• [4] https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol48/iss3/6
• [5] https://www.cyberlite.org/post/the-rise-of-ai-companions-helping-or-harming-kids

Claim

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed one of the most restrictive social media laws in the country.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed one of the most restrictive social media laws in the country is **true**. On March 25, 2024, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 3 (HB 3) into law, which prohibits minors under the age of 14 from having social media accounts and requires parental consent for minors aged 14 and 15 to use these platforms[1][2][3].

### Key Provisions of the Law

– **Age Restrictions**: Minors under 14 are prohibited from having social media accounts. For those aged 14 and 15, parental consent is required to maintain or create an account[1][3].
– **Account Termination**: Social media companies must terminate accounts of users under 14 or those believed to be under 14. For users aged 14 and 15, accounts must be terminated unless parental consent is obtained[1][3].
– **Definition of Social Media Platforms**: The law applies to platforms that allow user content upload/viewing, have at least 10% of daily active users under 16 spending two hours or more daily, employ user data algorithms, and include addictive features like infinite scrolling or push notifications[1][3].
– **Penalties**: Non-compliant companies face civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation or $10,000 in damages in civil suits[1][5].

### Legal Challenges

The law is currently facing legal challenges, with lawsuits filed by tech industry groups and adult entertainment organizations, citing First Amendment concerns and age verification issues[5]. Despite these challenges, the law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025, with enforcement expected to begin in February 2025[5].

### Context and Implications

This legislation reflects growing concerns about the impact of social media on minors' mental health and well-being, aligning with broader societal discussions about the role of technology in childhood development[2][4]. Critics argue that the law infringes on free speech rights and parental discretion, while supporters see it as necessary to protect minors from harmful content and addictive technologies[2][4].

In conclusion, the claim is supported by recent legislative actions in Florida, which indeed impose significant restrictions on social media access for minors. However, the law's effectiveness and constitutionality are subject to ongoing legal scrutiny.

Citations

• [1] https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-information-security-law/florida-enacts-legislation-restriction-social-media-accounts-for-minors
• [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/floridas-desantis-signs-one-of-the-countrys-most-restrictive-social-media-bans-for-minors
• [3] https://www.insideprivacy.com/uncategorized/florida-enacts-social-media-bill-restricting-access-for-teens-under-the-age-of-sixteen/
• [4] https://www.aclufl.org/en/press-releases/aclu-florida-statement-gov-desantis-signing-social-media-censorship-bill-law
• [5] https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2024-12-30/florida-social-media-law-takes-effect-january-1-what-to-know

Claim

The no cell phones in schools movement is going national with several states considering bans.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the movement to ban cell phones in schools is gaining national traction, with several states considering such bans, is substantiated by recent developments in education policy across the United States. As of the 2024-2025 school year, a significant number of states are either implementing or contemplating statewide bans on cell phone usage in K-12 schools.

### Current Trends in Cell Phone Bans

– **Legislative Actions**: As of March 2025, nine states have enacted laws that either ban or restrict cell phone use in schools. These include states like Florida, California, and Arkansas, which have implemented various policies aimed at limiting distractions during instructional time[1][2]. For instance, Arkansas recently passed the Phone-Free School Act, requiring districts to develop policies that restrict phone use during school hours[1].

– **Growing Support**: The movement has garnered bipartisan support, with many educators and policymakers advocating for these bans as a means to address rising mental health concerns among students and to enhance academic focus. The U.S. Surgeon General has also issued advisories highlighting the negative impacts of social media on youth mental health, further fueling the push for restrictions[1][2].

– **State-Level Initiatives**: In addition to the states that have passed laws, sixteen others have introduced legislation or recommended policies aimed at restricting cell phone use in schools. This includes guidance from education departments in states like Connecticut and West Virginia, which have issued recommendations to limit phone usage[1][2].

### Implications and Challenges

The movement to ban cell phones in schools is not without its challenges. Enforcement of these bans can be complex, as teachers may find it difficult to manage compliance among students. Additionally, there are concerns about equity, as some schools may struggle to enforce bans uniformly, particularly in districts serving lower-income populations[1][4].

Moreover, while many educators believe that reducing phone distractions can lead to improved academic performance, research on the effectiveness of such bans remains limited. Some studies suggest that phone bans can lead to better test scores, particularly among students who typically underperform academically[3][4].

### Conclusion

In summary, the no cell phones in schools movement is indeed gaining momentum across the United States, with numerous states actively considering or implementing bans. This trend reflects broader concerns about student mental health and the need for focused learning environments, as highlighted by recent discussions in educational policy circles. The ongoing dialogue around this issue indicates a significant cultural shift in how technology is perceived in educational settings, emphasizing the importance of balancing technological engagement with traditional forms of learning and social interaction.

Citations

• [1] https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/a-look-at-state-efforts-to-ban-cellphones-in-schools-and-implications-for-youth-mental-health/
• [2] https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/insights/which-states-have-banned-cell-phones-in-schools/161286/
• [3] https://deerfieldscroll.com/2025/02/phone-bans-arent-just-at-da-analyzing-international-trends/
• [4] https://www.edweek.org/technology/which-states-ban-or-restrict-cellphones-in-schools/2024/06
• [5] https://www.awayfortheday.org/latest-news/why-schools-are-racing-to-ban-student-phones

Claim

At five years old, the human brain is 90 percent of its adult size and has more neurons than it will when you're an adult.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Brain Development at Five Years Old

The claim states that at five years old, the human brain is 90 percent of its adult size and has more neurons than it will when you're an adult. Let's evaluate this claim based on scientific evidence.

### Brain Size and Development

1. **Brain Size**: Research indicates that by age five, the brain reaches approximately 90% of its adult size, which aligns with the claim[1][2]. However, it's crucial to note that brain size is not the sole indicator of brain development or maturity[2].

2. **Neural Connections**: The brain indeed forms more neural connections (synapses) early in life than it retains in adulthood. This process involves the overproduction of synapses, with many being pruned later in life as the brain refines its connections[2]. However, the claim about having more neurons is not accurate; humans are born with most of the neurons they will have for life, but the connections between these neurons (synapses) are what change significantly over time[1][2].

### Neuron Count

– **Neuron Number**: The number of neurons in the human brain is largely established at birth. While there is some neurogenesis in certain parts of the brain throughout life, the overall number of neurons does not increase significantly after birth[1][2].

### Conclusion

The claim is partially accurate regarding brain size but incorrect regarding neuron count. By five years old, the brain is indeed about 90% of its adult size, but it does not have more neurons than it will in adulthood. Instead, the early years are marked by the formation and refinement of neural connections.

### Recommendations for Future Claims

– **Clarify Terms**: When discussing brain development, it's essential to distinguish between brain size, neuron count, and neural connections.
– **Reference Reliable Sources**: Ensure that claims are supported by scientific literature from reputable sources in neuroscience and developmental psychology.

### Additional Context

The discussion around brain development highlights the importance of early childhood experiences in shaping brain architecture and long-term outcomes. Positive interactions and environments are crucial for healthy development, while adverse experiences can have lasting negative effects[1][3]. This context supports the broader conversation about the importance of balanced childhood experiences, including play and social engagement, for fostering healthy development.

Citations

• [1] https://files.firstthingsfirst.org/why-early-childhood-matters/the-first-five-years
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11526699/
• [3] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/C.-1-The-Science-of-Early-Childhood.pdf
• [4] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-lifespandevelopment/chapter/brain-development-during-adolescence/
• [5] https://raisingchildren.net.au/school-age/development/development-tracker/5-6-years

Claim

Parents today spend much more time with their kids than they did in the past.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Parents Today Spend Much More Time with Their Kids Than They Did in the Past

The assertion that parents today spend more time with their children than in the past can be evaluated using historical data and studies on parenting time across different decades. Here's an analysis based on available evidence:

### Historical Trends in Parenting Time

1. **Increase in Parenting Time**: Studies have consistently shown that parents, especially in Western countries, are spending more time with their children compared to past decades. For instance, a study published in 2016 by sociologists Giulia Dotti Sani and Judith Treas found that between 1965 and 2012, mothers' daily time spent on childcare activities increased from 54 minutes to 104 minutes, while fathers' time increased from 16 minutes to 59 minutes[2].

2. **Evidence from Time-Use Surveys**: Time-use diaries, which are a reliable method for tracking daily activities, have been used to measure the time parents spend with their children. These surveys indicate a significant increase in parenting time over the past few decades, with both mothers and fathers contributing more time to childcare[1][2].

3. **Educational Gradient**: There is also an educational gradient observed in parenting time, where more educated parents tend to spend more time with their children. For example, college-educated mothers spent about 123 minutes daily on childcare in 2012, compared to 94 minutes by less educated mothers[2].

### Children's Perspective

– **Children's Reports**: Studies have shown that children also perceive an increase in time spent with their parents. A study from 2001 found that children reported spending about 4.3 more hours per week with mothers and 3 more hours per week with fathers in 1997 compared to 1981[1].

### Societal and Cultural Changes

– **Family Structure Changes**: Despite changes in family structures, such as an increase in single-parent households and more women working outside the home, parents have managed to increase the time spent with their children[1][4].

– **Cultural Shifts**: The cultural shift towards intensive parenting, where parents prioritize spending time with children for their cognitive and emotional development, has contributed to this trend[2].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from time-use surveys and studies, the claim that parents today spend much more time with their kids than they did in the past is generally supported. This trend is observed across many Western countries and is influenced by cultural shifts towards more involved parenting.

However, it's important to consider that while parents may spend more time with their children, the quality and nature of this time have changed due to factors like increased screen time and societal pressures. The discussion around Jonathan Haidt's book highlights these concerns, emphasizing the need for a balance between parental involvement and allowing children independence and social interaction outside of technology.

Citations

• [1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/01/parents-children-parenting-time-spent-work-family-life-balance/
• [2] https://news.uci.edu/2016/09/28/todays-parents-spend-more-time-with-their-kids-than-moms-and-dads-did-50-years-ago/
• [3] https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/activity-by-parent.htm
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6124501/
• [5] https://parentclassesonline.com/child-custody-statistics/

Claim

There is a significant increase in screen time and its possible connection to rising indicators of mental illness starting around 2012-2013.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that there is a significant increase in screen time and its possible connection to rising indicators of mental illness starting around 2012-2013, we need to examine trends in screen time usage and mental health statistics over those years.

## Screen Time Trends

1. **Rise in Smartphone Use**: The period around 2012-2013 marks a significant increase in smartphone adoption and usage. Smartphones became more affordable and widely available, leading to a surge in screen time among various age groups, especially adolescents and young adults[4][5].

2. **Screen Time and Mental Health**: Studies have shown that excessive screen time, particularly among adolescents, is associated with mental health problems such as anxiety and depression[2][4]. The widespread use of smartphones and other digital devices has been linked to increased screen time, which may contribute to these mental health issues[5].

## Mental Health Trends

1. **Rising Mental Health Issues**: There has been a notable increase in mental health issues among adolescents and young adults since the early 2010s. Anxiety and depression have become more prevalent, with many factors contributing to this trend, including changes in societal pressures and technological influences[2][4].

2. **Correlation with Screen Time**: Research indicates a correlation between increased screen time and higher rates of mental health problems. For instance, studies have found that adolescents with high screen time are more likely to experience anxiety and depression[3][5].

## Public Health Statistics

Public health statistics often show a lag in reporting detailed trends, but available data suggest that mental health issues have increased among young people over the past decade. This rise coincides with increased screen time, although the causal relationship is complex and influenced by multiple factors[1][4].

## Conclusion

While there is evidence supporting an increase in screen time and mental health issues around 2012-2013, the relationship between these two factors is multifaceted. The claim that there is a significant connection between rising screen time and mental illness is supported by various studies indicating a correlation between excessive screen time and increased mental health problems among adolescents and young adults[1][2][4]. However, it is crucial to consider other societal and environmental factors that also contribute to this trend.

### Key Points:
– **Increased Screen Time**: The widespread adoption of smartphones around 2012-2013 led to increased screen time.
– **Mental Health Trends**: There has been a notable rise in mental health issues among adolescents and young adults since the early 2010s.
– **Correlation**: Studies suggest a correlation between high screen time and increased mental health problems, though the relationship is complex.

### Recommendations for Future Research:
1. **Longitudinal Studies**: Conduct more longitudinal studies to better understand the causal relationship between screen time and mental health.
2. **Device-Specific Analysis**: Investigate the impact of different screen devices (e.g., smartphones, TVs, computers) on mental health.
3. **Societal Factors**: Examine how broader societal changes, such as parenting styles and educational pressures, interact with screen time to affect mental health.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9815119/
• [2] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1101594/full
• [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6214874/
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10117262/
• [5] https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1573642/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Claim

Parenting practices changed significantly in the 1990s due to rising fears of danger and declined social trust.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that parenting practices changed significantly in the 1990s due to rising fears of danger and declining social trust is supported by various sociological studies and observations from that era. The 1990s marked a notable shift in parenting styles, influenced by societal changes, increased media coverage of child abductions, and a growing sense of danger in the environment.

### Changes in Parenting Practices

1. **Increased Overprotection**: The rise of "helicopter parenting" can be traced back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, where parents began to adopt more protective and controlling behaviors. This parenting style is characterized by a high level of involvement in children's lives, often to the detriment of the child's independence and self-sufficiency. Studies indicate that this shift was partly a response to societal fears about child safety, leading parents to schedule playdates and supervise activities more closely than previous generations did[2].

2. **Declining Social Trust**: The 1990s saw a decrease in social trust, which influenced how parents perceived their communities. Many parents became wary of allowing their children to roam freely, a stark contrast to earlier decades when children often played outside unsupervised. This decline in trust is linked to increased media reports of crime and abduction, which heightened parental anxiety and led to more restrictive parenting practices[3][4].

3. **Impact on Child Development**: The shift towards more protective parenting has been associated with negative outcomes for children, including increased rates of anxiety and depression. Research shows that children raised in overprotective environments may struggle with social competence and emotional regulation, as they are not given the opportunity to navigate challenges independently[2][4].

### Cultural and Technological Influences

The cultural landscape of the 1990s also contributed to changes in parenting. The advent of the internet and mobile technology began to reshape how families interacted and how children engaged with the world. While technology provided new opportunities for learning and connection, it also led to concerns about screen time and its effects on social skills and mental health. Critics argue that reliance on technology has replaced traditional forms of play and social engagement, further contributing to the challenges faced by today's youth[1][3].

### Conclusion

In summary, the claim that parenting practices changed significantly in the 1990s due to rising fears of danger and declining social trust is substantiated by sociological studies and cultural observations. The emergence of helicopter parenting, coupled with a decrease in social trust, has led to more protective and structured parenting styles, which have implications for children's development and well-being. The ongoing dialogue about the balance between protection and independence continues to evolve as new challenges arise in the context of technology and societal expectations.

Citations

• [1] https://theeverymom.com/90s-parenting-styles/
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9176408/
• [3] https://neworleansmom.com/perspectives-in-parenting/family-life-today-verses-90s/
• [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_styles
• [5] https://www.consciousmommy.com/post/parenting-styles-and-their-evolution

Claim

The Nintendo Entertainment System was the first mass-adopted gaming console and significantly changed childhood entertainment.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) as the First Mass-Adopted Gaming Console and Its Impact on Childhood Entertainment

The claim that the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was the first mass-adopted gaming console and significantly changed childhood entertainment can be evaluated through historical accounts and market trends.

### Historical Context and Market Impact

1. **Revitalization of the Gaming Industry**: The NES played a crucial role in revitalizing the American gaming industry following the video game crash of 1983. It introduced a licensing model for third-party developers, which became a standard in the industry and helped ensure higher-quality games[1][5].

2. **Mass Adoption**: The NES was launched in North America in 1985 and became widely popular, selling over 61.91 million units worldwide. It dominated the Japanese and North American markets, although it initially faced competition in Europe[1][5].

3. **Cultural Impact**: The NES introduced influential games such as *Super Mario Bros.*, *The Legend of Zelda*, and *Metroid*, which became cultural phenomena and significantly impacted childhood entertainment by providing engaging, interactive experiences[1][3].

### Impact on Childhood Entertainment

1. **Shift in Entertainment Preferences**: The NES marked a shift in how children spent their leisure time, moving from traditional toys and outdoor play to more technology-based entertainment. This change was part of a broader trend where technology increasingly influenced play and entertainment[4].

2. **Social and Cultural Influence**: The NES contributed to a cultural shift where video games became a common form of social interaction and entertainment among children. It influenced the development of future gaming consoles and the broader gaming industry[2][5].

### Conclusion

While the NES was not the first gaming console, it was indeed one of the first mass-adopted consoles that significantly impacted childhood entertainment. It helped transform the gaming industry and influenced how children engaged with technology for entertainment. The claim is supported by historical evidence of the NES's market success and cultural impact.

However, it's important to note that the NES was not the first mass-adopted console in absolute terms; earlier systems like the Atari 2600 also had significant market presence. Nonetheless, the NES's influence on the gaming industry and childhood entertainment is undeniable.

In the context of discussions about modern childhood and technology use, the NES represents an early milestone in the integration of technology into children's lives, setting the stage for future trends in digital entertainment.

Citations

• [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System
• [2] https://hcs64.com/files/I%20Am%20Error.pdf
• [3] https://wcyy.com/nintendo-nes-history/
• [4] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=64ac33a97a8df323262cc98e579b1e368c03e1e5
• [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Nintendo_Entertainment_System

Claim

Until 2010, about 9% of high school seniors agreed their life feels useless, but by 2012, that percentage doubled within five years.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that until 2010, about 9% of high school seniors agreed their life feels useless, and by 2012, that percentage doubled, is not supported by the available data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study.

### Analysis of the Claim

1. **Initial Percentage**: The claim states that 9% of high school seniors felt their life was useless until 2010. However, the specific percentage of students expressing this sentiment is not explicitly documented in the 2010 MTF study highlights or subsequent reports from that period. The MTF study does collect a wide range of data on attitudes and behaviors among high school seniors, but the specific statistic regarding feelings of life being useless is not detailed in the provided sources.

2. **Change Over Time**: The assertion that this percentage doubled by 2012 is also unverified. The MTF study does track various mental health indicators and attitudes over time, but the specific data regarding the percentage of students feeling their life is useless is not available in the 2012 overview or other related documents. The 2012 report focuses more on substance use and related attitudes rather than explicitly measuring feelings of worthlessness or uselessness among students.

3. **Contextual Findings**: While the MTF study has documented trends in substance use and some mental health indicators, it does not provide a clear longitudinal analysis of feelings of uselessness as described in the claim. The study's focus is broader, encompassing various lifestyle factors, drug use, and social attitudes, but does not isolate the specific sentiment of life feeling useless as a tracked metric.

### Conclusion

The claim lacks direct support from the Monitoring the Future study data. While it is true that the MTF study has been instrumental in tracking various aspects of youth behavior and attitudes over the years, the specific statistics regarding feelings of life being useless among high school seniors before 2010 and the subsequent increase by 2012 are not substantiated by the available evidence. Therefore, the claim cannot be verified as accurate based on the current data from the MTF study.

Citations

• [1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/2010-monitoring-the-future-study-highlights
• [2] https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/FINAL%20R2R%20REPORT%20DESIGNED%20April%2012.pdf
• [3] https://monitoringthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/mtf-occ82.pdf
• [4] https://monitoringthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/mtf-vol2_2012.pdf
• [5] https://monitoringthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/mtf-overview2012.pdf

Claim

There is a progressive weakening of a sense of a moral order which affects how you parent.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there is a progressive weakening of a sense of moral order affecting parenting aligns with observations made in sociological studies and cultural analyses, particularly in the context of Jonathan Haidt's recent work, *The Anxious Generation*. This book discusses how societal shifts, particularly since the 1990s, have influenced parenting styles and children's development.

### Societal Shifts and Parenting

Haidt argues that the transition from a "play-based childhood" to a "phone-based childhood" has significantly impacted children's mental health and social development. He identifies several factors contributing to this change:

– **Overprotective Parenting**: The rise of "safetyism" has led parents to become more protective, limiting children's opportunities for independent exploration and risk-taking. This overprotection is seen as detrimental, as children need to face challenges to develop resilience and coping skills[1][3].

– **Technology's Role**: The proliferation of smartphones and social media has altered how children interact with their peers. Haidt notes that since the widespread adoption of smartphones around 2010, there has been a marked increase in mental health issues among adolescents, including anxiety and depression. This shift has resulted in less face-to-face interaction and more reliance on digital communication, which lacks the depth of real-world relationships[1][3][5].

– **Cultural Norms**: The cultural emphasis on academic success and structured activities has overshadowed the importance of unstructured play. This shift has led to a decline in children's ability to engage in free play, which is crucial for social and emotional development. The current parenting paradigm often prioritizes measurable outcomes over the intrinsic value of childhood experiences[1][3].

### Implications for Moral Order

The weakening of a moral order can be seen in how these societal changes affect parenting practices. As parents become more focused on protecting their children from perceived dangers—both physical and emotional—they may inadvertently instill a sense of fear and dependency rather than resilience and independence. This shift can lead to:

– **Reduced Moral Frameworks**: With less emphasis on traditional play and exploration, children may miss out on learning moral lessons that come from navigating social interactions and facing challenges. The reliance on technology can further dilute these experiences, as online interactions often lack the moral complexities found in real-life situations[3][5].

– **Changing Values**: The focus on academic and technological success may shift parental values away from fostering moral reasoning and ethical behavior. Instead, success is often measured by achievements in school or online, which may not align with traditional moral teachings[1][3].

### Conclusion

In summary, the claim regarding the weakening of a moral order affecting parenting is supported by evidence from Haidt's analysis and broader sociological trends. The interplay of overprotective parenting, technological reliance, and changing cultural values has contributed to a landscape where traditional moral frameworks are less emphasized, potentially impacting children's development and their understanding of moral order. As society continues to evolve, these dynamics will likely remain a critical area for further exploration and discussion.

Citations

• [1] https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book
• [2] https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Social-movements.An-introduction-by-Della-Porta-and-Mario-Diani.pdf
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxious_Generation
• [4] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245825
• [5] https://fourminutebooks.com/the-anxious-generation-summary/

Claim

There is a massive deregulation of sports gambling which is bad for consuming young men.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there is a massive deregulation of sports gambling which is bad for consuming young men can be evaluated by examining recent changes in legislation and their implications for youth.

## Deregulation of Sports Gambling

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in **Murphy v. NCAA**, effectively ending the federal ban on sports betting by striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). This decision allowed states to legalize and regulate sports betting, leading to a rapid expansion of the industry across the U.S.[1]. Since then, numerous states have legalized sports betting, often with varying degrees of regulation regarding advertising and age restrictions.

## Implications for Youth

1. **Increased Exposure and Risk**: The legalization of sports betting has increased exposure to gambling for young people. This heightened exposure can lead to increased participation in gambling activities, even among those under the legal age limit. For instance, a survey at Redwood High School found that a significant percentage of students, despite being underage, engage in sports betting[5].

2. **Addiction Risks**: Young people, particularly teenagers, are more susceptible to developing gambling problems than adults. This vulnerability is attributed to brain development patterns, where the "accelerator" (impulsive behaviors) develops before the "brakes" (self-control mechanisms)[3]. The ease of access to online betting platforms exacerbates this risk, as seen in the widespread use of apps like FanDuel and DraftKings among teens[5].

3. **Marketing and Normalization**: The proliferation of sports betting advertising contributes to the normalization of gambling among youth. These ads often target young audiences, making gambling appear as a form of entertainment rather than a potentially harmful activity[4]. This normalization can lead to a higher likelihood of young people engaging in gambling behaviors.

4. **Lack of Comprehensive Regulation**: While some states have implemented regulations to protect minors, such as age verification processes, these measures are not universally effective. The federal government has limited involvement in regulating sports betting, leaving much of the oversight to individual states[2]. This patchwork of regulations can lead to inconsistent protection for young people across different jurisdictions.

## Conclusion

The claim that the deregulation of sports gambling is bad for young men is supported by evidence. The expansion of sports betting has increased exposure to gambling among youth, heightened the risk of addiction, and normalized gambling through extensive marketing. While some states have taken steps to regulate the industry, more comprehensive federal oversight and public health measures are needed to mitigate these risks effectively.

In the context of Jonathan Haidt's discussions on modern childhood and societal changes, the rise of sports betting among young people aligns with broader concerns about excessive screen time and the normalization of potentially harmful behaviors. Efforts to address these issues should include not only legislative changes but also educational initiatives and community programs aimed at reducing the appeal and accessibility of gambling for minors.

Citations

• [1] https://www.nfhs.org/articles/supreme-court-s-decision-on-sports-gambling-effects-on-high-school-games/
• [2] https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-sports-gambling-industry-needs
• [3] https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/10/23/psychological-effects-youth-gambling-creates-concern/
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10024482/
• [5] https://redwoodbark.org/91272/sports/uncovering-the-epidemic-of-youth-sports-gambling/

Claim

States in the United States are either mostly red or blue but this is a bipartisan issue.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: States in the United States are Either Mostly Red or Blue, but This is a Bipartisan Issue

The claim posits that while states in the U.S. are often politically polarized as "red" (Republican-leaning) or "blue" (Democratic-leaning), issues related to technology and parenting, such as those discussed in Jonathan Haidt's book *The Anxious Generation*, transcend party lines. This assertion can be analyzed through the lens of political dynamics and public policy studies.

### Political Polarization and Bipartisan Issues

1. **Political Polarization**: The United States is indeed characterized by significant political polarization, with many states leaning strongly towards either the Democratic or Republican Party. This polarization often affects how policies are approached and implemented at the state level[2][4].

2. **Bipartisan Issues**: Despite this polarization, certain issues can garner bipartisan support. These typically involve broad societal concerns that affect constituents across party lines, such as education, healthcare, and, increasingly, issues related to technology and its impact on society.

### The Anxious Generation and Bipartisan Concerns

Jonathan Haidt's *The Anxious Generation* highlights the impact of smartphones and social media on children's mental health, a concern that can be considered bipartisan for several reasons:

– **Universal Impact**: The effects of excessive screen time and social media usage on children's mental health are not limited by political affiliation. Both Democratic and Republican families are affected, making it a universal concern that can unite policymakers across party lines[1][3][5].

– **Legislative Actions**: As states begin to legislate against smartphone use in schools, this action demonstrates a willingness to address the issue through policy, which can be supported by both parties. Such legislation often aims to protect children and promote healthier childhood practices, goals that are generally bipartisan[3][5].

– **Public Policy and Advocacy**: Advocacy for a return to more traditional forms of childhood, emphasizing real-world interactions and moral frameworks, resonates with values that are not inherently partisan. This includes promoting playgrounds, phone-free zones, and encouraging in-person socialization, which can be supported by policymakers from both sides[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that issues related to technology and parenting, as discussed in *The Anxious Generation*, are bipartisan is supported by the fact that these concerns affect families universally and are increasingly being addressed through bipartisan legislative efforts. While political polarization is a significant factor in U.S. politics, issues that impact children's well-being and societal health can often transcend party lines, leading to collaborative policy-making and public advocacy.

In summary, while states may be politically polarized, the impact of technology on children's mental health and the need for healthier parenting practices are concerns that can unite policymakers and the public across party lines, making this a bipartisan issue.

Citations

• [1] https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/faculty-research/anxious-generation-how-great-rewiring-childhood-causing-epidemic-mental-illness
• [2] https://www.congress.gov/107/crec/2002/09/24/CREC-2002-09-24-senate.pdf
• [3] https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book
• [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2004-07-13/pdf/CREC-2004-07-13-senate.pdf
• [5] https://www.gatesnotes.com/the-anxious-generation

Claim

Utah has by far the strongest regulations on social media around children.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

Utah has indeed established some of the most stringent regulations regarding social media use among minors in the United States. The state has enacted several laws aimed at protecting children from the potential harms associated with social media, particularly concerning mental health and privacy.

### Key Legislative Measures

1. **Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act (SB 194)**:
– This law mandates that social media companies implement an age assurance system to verify whether users are minors, achieving at least 95% accuracy.
– It requires default privacy settings for minor accounts that prioritize maximum privacy, limiting visibility and data collection unless parental consent is obtained.
– Features that could lead to excessive engagement, such as autoplay and infinite scrolling, must be disabled for minor accounts.
– The law also provides supervisory tools that allow parents or guardians to set time limits and monitor usage, although the supervisor does not have to be a parent[1][2][3].

2. **Social Media Amendments (HB 464)**:
– This legislation allows minors or their parents to sue social media companies for mental health issues linked to excessive use of algorithmically curated content.
– It establishes a rebuttable presumption that social media companies are liable for harm caused by their platforms if they use engagement-driven design features[1][3][4].

### Comparison with Other States

While other states, such as Arkansas and Ohio, have attempted to implement similar regulations, many of their laws have faced legal challenges that have stalled their enforcement. For instance, Arkansas's law was enjoined as unconstitutional, which highlights the legal complexities surrounding such regulations[3]. In contrast, Utah's proactive approach has positioned it as a leader in this area, with its laws designed to withstand legal scrutiny and provide robust protections for minors.

### Public Sentiment and Legislative Intent

The legislative efforts in Utah are driven by significant public concern regarding the impact of social media on youth mental health. Surveys indicate that a large majority of parents in Utah believe social media negatively affects children, with alarming statistics about mental health issues among teens[4]. Lawmakers have expressed a commitment to safeguarding youth and addressing the addictive nature of social media platforms, which they argue exploit children for profit[4][5].

### Conclusion

In summary, Utah's regulations on social media use for minors are among the most comprehensive in the nation, focusing on privacy, mental health, and parental control. The state's legislative framework reflects a strong commitment to protecting children from the adverse effects of social media, setting a precedent that other states may look to emulate.

Citations

• [1] https://www.bytebacklaw.com/2024/03/utah-legislature-repeals-and-replaces-utah-social-media-regulation-act/
• [2] https://socialmedia.utah.gov
• [3] https://www.wsgrdataadvisor.com/2024/03/utah-passes-new-versions-of-social-media-laws-for-minors-in-response-to-challenges/
• [4] https://senate.utah.gov/protecting-utahs-youth-from-harms-of-social-media/
• [5] https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter71/C13-71_2024100120240501.pdf

Claim

Don't give kids their own touchscreen before high school or age 14.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Don't give kids their own touchscreen before high school or age 14"

The claim that children should not have their own touchscreen devices before high school or age 14 is supported by several arguments and evidence from social psychologists and researchers, particularly in the context of Jonathan Haidt's work in "The Anxious Generation." Here's a detailed evaluation of this claim:

### Background and Context

Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Anxious Generation," explores the impact of modern technology, especially smartphones and social media, on the mental health of adolescents. Haidt argues that the shift from "play-based" to "phone-based" childhoods has led to significant increases in anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues among young people[1][2][3].

### Key Arguments

1. **Developmental Needs**: Children require play and social interaction to develop essential life skills, such as conflict resolution, empathy, and independence. Excessive screen time can hinder these developmental processes by promoting social isolation and reducing opportunities for unstructured play[2][4].

2. **Mental Health Implications**: The rise of smartphone use among adolescents has been linked to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm. This is attributed to factors like sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and social comparison facilitated by social media[1][3].

3. **Parenting and Societal Pressures**: Modern parenting often prioritizes safety and academic success over allowing children to explore independently. This can lead to over-reliance on technology for entertainment and social interaction, further exacerbating mental health issues[3][5].

### Proposed Guidelines

Haidt and other experts suggest guidelines to mitigate these effects:

– **No Smartphones Before High School**: Children should not have smartphones until they are at least in high school. Instead, flip phones can be used for basic communication[2][4].
– **No Social Media Before Age 16**: Social media use should be delayed until children are at least 16 years old to protect them from cyberbullying, drama, and other negative impacts[2][5].
– **Phone-Free Schools**: Schools should implement policies to keep students phone-free during school hours to encourage learning and social interaction[2][4].
– **More Free Play and Independence**: Children should be encouraged to engage in more unstructured play and be given more independence to explore the real world[4][5].

### Conclusion

The claim that children should not have their own touchscreen devices before high school or age 14 is supported by arguments emphasizing the importance of play-based childhoods for healthy development and the negative impacts of excessive screen time on mental health. While these guidelines are controversial and may be challenging to implement universally, they reflect a growing concern among experts about the need to balance technology use with traditional childhood experiences to foster healthier development.

### Evidence and Recommendations

– **Scientific Consensus**: There is a growing consensus among researchers that excessive screen time and early exposure to smartphones can have detrimental effects on children's mental health and social development[1][3][5].
– **Legislative Actions**: Some states and schools are beginning to implement policies limiting smartphone use in educational settings, reflecting a broader societal recognition of these issues[4].

Overall, while the claim is not universally accepted and may face practical challenges in implementation, it is grounded in research highlighting the importance of balancing technology use with traditional childhood experiences for healthy development.

Citations

• [1] https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book
• [2] https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/kids-childhood-smartphone-ban-social-media
• [3] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/books/the-anxious-generation-how-the-great-rewiring-of-childhood-is-causing-an-epidemic-of-mental-illness/
• [4] https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/family/story/author-suggests-guidelines-parents-kids-phones-social-media-108509992
• [5] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/jonathan-haidt-digital-technology-social-media-childhood/