AI, political disruption, inequality—these were the topics I expected to discuss in Davos this year. Yet, on my first day in town, I listened to an unflinching examination of a “global experiment” in which children are the test subjects and society hangs in the balance.
Any parent will tell you screen time, phone addiction, and the hazards of social media are big topics in the U.S. It turns out that parents across the globe feel the same way, and in many places, they are doing something about it.
At the Future House, a group of thought leaders gathered to tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time: how social media and technology are reshaping childhood. Moderated by Dr. Mitch Prinstein, Chief Psychology Officer of the American Psychological Association, the conversation explored the complex interplay of innovation, ethics, and the psychological well-being of the next generation. Panelists included Jon Haidt, NYU professor and bestselling author; Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology; Julie Scelfo, Executive Director of Mothers Against Media Addiction; and Sheila Warren, CEO of the Project Liberty Institute.
The Scope of the Problem
Dr. Mitch Prinstein set the stage with a sobering reality check: “Fifty percent of kids report at least one symptom of clinical dependence on social media. A third are online almost constantly. They’re not just losing time—they’re losing the ability to think and reflect.” With that, the panel launched into a candid exploration of how technology has infiltrated nearly every aspect of childhood.
Jonathan Haidt, author of the best-selling The Anxious Generation, emphasized the moral and psychological dimensions of the issue, pointing out how technology is eroding the spaces traditionally reserved for community and family. “Technology has taken over spaces that used to belong to families, schools, and communities,” he said. “We’re raising a generation primed to consume content rather than build community.” Haidt painted a vivid picture of what’s at stake, likening endless scrolling and algorithmic optimization to “shortcuts for learning” that ultimately undermine long-term development.
Tristan Harris, known for his sharp critiques of Big Tech, such as The Social Dilemma, compared the social media business model to that of Big Tobacco. “This is an engagement-based business model,” Harris warned. “It’s the race to the bottom of the brain stem, optimizing for addiction, not well-being. And now AI is supercharging this.” His example of an AI chatbot that encouraged a teenager to self-harm underscored the unintended but devastating consequences of innovation without oversight.
It is Personal for Parents
Julie Scelfo brought a personal lens to the conversation, recounting how her daughter’s use of gamified educational apps during the pandemic was both a source of joy and a glimpse into a digitally intermediated future.
“During the pandemic, my daughter FaceTimed her friends while solving math problems in a gamified app. It was competitive, social, and joyful. But it’s also a reminder that these digital interactions are becoming their reality,” Scelfo said. Her anecdote shows the dual-edged nature of technology: it is a tool for connection but a potential substitute for more profound, real-world experiences.
Sheila Warren broadened the lens, emphasizing the systemic nature of the problem. “The capture of entire communities by monopolistic platforms is real,” she said. “The stickiness of these ecosystems makes it nearly impossible to leave. Project Liberty is working to create alternatives that give people real choice and voice.”
The need for bold regulation and collective action emerged as a central theme throughout the conversation. “We don’t let kids gamble or drink, but we allow them to use products designed to addict them,” Haidt remarked, stressing the urgency of age verification systems and phone-free schools. “The U.S. has fallen behind. We’ve had no meaningful regulation since the 1990s.”
Scelfo spotlighted grassroots efforts, describing how Mothers Against Media Addiction rallied parents to demand local and legislative changes. “Parents can’t fight this alone. That’s why we started Mothers Against Media Addiction. We’re organizing communities to demand changes at the school and legislative levels,” she said.
Harris pointed to international progress as a source of inspiration.
“The EU’s Age-Appropriate Design Code is a step forward. It ensures platforms don’t expose kids to endless scrolling and harmful algorithms. Why can’t the U.S. follow suit?” he asked.
Four Steps: Healthier, Happier Kids
As the discussion shifted toward solutions, the panelists laid out practical steps to reclaim childhood from the grip of screens. Haidt outlined “four norms” for families: no smartphones before high school, no social media until age 16, phone-free schools, and a renewed focus on unstructured play. “If we can normalize these practices, we’ll create healthier environments for kids to grow,” he said.
Indeed, A growing body of evidence shows the negative impact of smartphones on learning and social well-being and the benefits of removing them from classrooms. A 2015 study by the London School of Economics found that banning phones in schools led to a 6.4% improvement in test scores, with low-achieving students benefiting the most, seeing a 14% increase. In France, a nationwide ban on smartphones in schools was enacted in 2018 for students under 15, following research linking unrestricted phone use to distractions and declining academic performance.
Prinstein encouraged parents to take immediate, manageable actions. “Start with simple steps,” he said. “Take the phone away at night. Protect their sleep. It used to be rude to call someone after 10 p.m. Let’s bring that back.”
The Role of Technology Companies
The discussion wasn’t limited to families and policymakers; the panelists directly called out Big Tech and its business models. “The platforms know their designs are harmful,” Harris said. “But they’re trapped in a business model that prioritizes profit over safety.”
Warren proposed rethinking the economic incentives driving the industry. “What if we shared the profits more equitably, or adopted subscription models that don’t rely on exploiting user data?” she asked.
Haidt didn’t mince words. “You won’t make as much money with ethical business models,” he acknowledged. “But we shouldn’t wait for profit-driven solutions. We need public-private partnerships to fund digital public infrastructure, much like we fund parks and libraries.”
As the session concluded, the panelists issued a resounding call to action. “This isn’t just a parenting problem or a policy problem. It’s a societal problem,” Scelfo said. “We need a global movement to protect our children and rebuild our communities.”
Harris left the audience with a sense of possibility. “The awareness is here. The momentum is building. Now it’s about turning light bulbs into laws.”
As Prinstein succinctly puts it. “Children are not just smaller adults. They’re developing beings who need our guidance and protection. Let’s not fail them.”
