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: smartphones and social media are threats simply by existing and we need to regulate their use or, any technology has an impact on our culture and this impact can influence behavior, fundamentally, dysfunctional? The technology is agnostic, what we do – ou não fazemos – what matters is the deal.
Mainly after the publication of the book “The Anxious Generation”, de Jonathan Haidt, alarmism spread among parents and educators, they found a culprit for the woes that afflict generations Z (1997 to 2009) and Alpha (2010 to 2024): smartphones. Para Haidt, the mere presence of smartphones in a place, with indiscriminate use of social networks, 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 find 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 am concerned that, in Brazil and in the world, estamos criando leis com o objetivo de proibir o acesso a smartphones baseadas em um pânico moral que, apparently, does not 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 behaviour.
The smartphones, que por incrível que pareça existem desde 1994, they only became popular from 2007, with the emergence of the first iPhone. If they have existed for so long, por qué solo ahora los adolescentes están sintiendo su impacto? Haidt blames social media and fast mobile internet. I and other researchers, like the Italian Alberto Acerbi, we have a different opinion: it is culture, stupid
With smartphones, anyone became a journalist or, no jargão actual, 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. This 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 their first girlfriend always there is the risk of rejection. This is normal, but today, someone trying to approach another person, online ou na vida real, there is a risk of being humiliated and canceled in the public square of the internet. A simplecaptura de ecrãcan 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. Nela, 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 this? A new culture, a culture of tolerance and grace on the internet, in which things like the previous print would be ignored by us, a behaviourdeclassé, 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, não saem em público e permanecem infantilizados por mais tempo. Because the prospect 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, nobody is.
What surprises me most about the prohibitive fury, tanto de Haidt como dos legisladores brasileiros e estrangeiros, que escolheram o smartphone como a fonte de todos os males, Haidt wrote several times about how a culture that has public humiliation as a hobby cannot be healthy. He calls this scheme, presente na teoria da terapia cognitivo-comportamental, de leitura de mentes, e assumirmos as piores intenções das outras pessoas.
To overcome this behaviour, this culture we have today – that I have to agree, é altamente disfuncional –, 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, além de construir uma comunicação mais racional. 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
