All researchers and professionals working with and on the internet agree that many things have changed since it became ubiquitous among adults, children and adolescents. But these diverge into two areas: would smartphones and social media be the threat simply by existing and do we need to regulate their use or, any technology has an impact on our culture and this impact can cause behavior to be, fundamentally, dysfunctional? Technology is agnostic, what we do – or we don't do – what matters is her.
Mainly after the publication of the book "The Anxious Generation", by Jonathan Haidt, alarmism spread among parents and educators, they found a culprit for the woes that afflict Generation Z (1997 to 2009) and Alpha (2010 to 2024): smartphones. For Haidt, the mere presence of smartphones in a place, with indiscriminate use of social media, is responsible for the increase in psychiatric illnesses. To support your conclusions, he shows data from the American College Health Association: since 2008, the number of adolescents with any mental health diagnosis increased from 20% to 45%
As a researcher and teacher in the digital world, I look at these numbers with suspicion because children throughout history have grown up under threats greater than the presence of a smartphone. And we don't even need to travel to the past to look for these children: after the attacks of October 7, 2023, in Israel, among children and adolescents who had direct contact the prevalence of mental disorders increased from 17% to 30%.
I'm worried that, in Brazil and in the world, we are creating laws with the aim of prohibiting smartphone access based on a moral panic that, apparently, cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. Anyway, the digital world has had an impact on our lives, this is undeniable, but let me propose an alternative hypothesis: that it is our culture, aided by smartphones, what is changing adolescent behavior.
Smartphones, that surprisingly have existed since 1994, they only became popular starting in 2007, with the emergence of the first iPhone. If they have existed for so long, why are teenagers only now feeling its impact? Haidt blames social media and fast mobile internet. Me and other researchers, like the Italian Alberto Acerbi, we have a different opinion: it's the culture, stupid
With smartphones, anyone became a journalist or, in current jargon, content creator. That means it doesn't matter where we are or what we do, there will always be an eye of Sauron, evil and red, watching us. That would be okay if surveillance were the only problem. The issue is that this all-seeing eye, also cancels, humiliates and embarrasses.
Imagine a teenager trying to win over his first girlfriend: there is always the risk of rejection. This is normal, but today, someone trying to approach another person, online or in real life, there is a risk of being humiliated and canceled in the public square of the internet. A simpleprint screencan make an 18-year-old boy a subject of mockery in all four corners of the world.
The best content ever produced by this cancel culture frenzy that the internet has brought to light is Monica Lewinsky's TED Talk. Yes, that same, I did not have sex with that woman. In her, the most hated woman of 1997 talks about not only her, but more diverse experiences of people who were lynched, metaphorically, in a digital public square. And the solution for that? A new culture, a culture of tolerance and grace on the internet, in things like the previous print would be ignored by us, a behaviordeclassified, vulgar.
And the mental health crisis? Teenagers are really sicker? According to the World Economic Forum, teenagers are delaying their entry into the adult world
My hypothesis is that, for fear of humiliation and cancellation, teenagers have not been getting driver's licenses, they do not go out in public and remain infantilized for longer. Because of the perspective of leaving in the world, and this world can be digital or real, presents a real social risk, for which their minds are not prepared. In fact, no one is.
What surprises me most about the prohibitive fury, both Haidt and Brazilian and foreign legislators, that they chose the smartphone as the source of all evil, Haidt has written several times about how a culture that has public humiliation as a hobby cannot be healthy. He calls this scheme, present in cognitive-behavioral therapy theory, mind reading, and we assume the worst intentions of other people.
To overcome this behavior, this culture we have today – that I have to agree, is highly dysfunctional –, Haidt also suggests a more generous stance that assumes good intentions in the actions and words of others. This approach helps reduce unnecessary conflicts and promotes healthier interactions, especially in polarized environments. By challenging these automatic assumptions, we make our eyes more empathetic and tolerant, besides building a more rational communication. On the internet and in real life, without needing to prohibit anything.
Lilian Carvalho é PhD em Marketing e coordenadora do Centro de Estudos em Marketing Digital da FGV/EAESP
