Share This Podcast

• Check out Jonathan’s book – www.anxiousgeneration.com/book
• Call Congress – 202-224-3121
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast
• Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/
• For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Thursday, March 26th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that does not like where first lady Melania Trump is going with all this. Here she is at an AI education summit at the White House on Wednesday after walking out with her new bestie, a humanoid robot named figure 03. 

[clip of First Lady Melania Trump] Imagine a humanoid educator named Plato. Access to the classical studies is now instantaneous. Literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history. Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home. 

Jane Coaston: No thank you, I’m good without humanoid teacher robots, especially ones named Plato. [music break] On today’s show, President Donald Trump makes a surprise decision and tells Elon Musk he doesn’t want his money. And Trump is reportedly spending each morning watching a highlight reel of the war edited for his attention span. But let’s start with social media. We told you on yesterday’s show that a jury found that Meta violated consumer protection laws in New Mexico, misleading users and putting children’s safety at risk. And on Wednesday, the hits just kept coming for the tech company that owns Instagram, Whatsapp and Facebook. A California jury found Meta and YouTube each liable for harming the well-being of a young user who had sued the two companies alongside TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat. The plaintiff argued that their products had harmed her mental health. TikTok and Snapchat settled before the trial began. Meta must now pay the plaintiff $4.2 million in damages and YouTube, which is owned by Google, must pay $1.8 million. In response to the verdict, a meta-spokesperson told the New York Times, quote, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.” A Google spokesperson told the Times, quote, “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.” But these verdicts are part of a massive shift in how Americans are thinking about social media. Polling released on Wednesday by Edison Research at SSRS, a major data and research firm, found that 57% of Americans ages 18 and older would support a social-media ban for anyone under 16. And Congress is finally noticing. Here’s Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin speaking about the New Mexico ruling at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. 

[clip of Senator Dick Durbin] This ought to be a call to action to this committee to respond on the Senate floor and actually legislate for a change instead of what we do day after day. Legislate for the benefit of these children and our grandchildren. 

Jane Coaston: But civil liberties groups, like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, are crying foul, arguing that curtailing speech and content on social media is curtailing speech, period. Jonathan Haidt is an author and social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He has been sounding the alarm about social media’s impact on young people for years, but I had some questions about what stronger regulations on young people could mean for all social media users. Jonathan, welcome to What a Day.

Jonathan Haidt: Thanks very much, Jane. Great to be here. 

Jane Coaston: There were two major cases this week where juries found Meta liable for harm to children who use their platforms. To start off, what was the question at the center of the lawsuit in California? 

Jonathan Haidt: So the background that’s crucial to understand here is that any normal consumer product, a company that makes money off of kids, if their product has defective design and it hurts kids, they can be sued for damage. That’s just common sense, that’s tort law, that’s everything. But in the U.S., because of Section 230, the Communications Decency Act, which gives platforms protection from being sued for what someone else posted, they that has been interpreted so broadly as to give them blanket immunity. So that they can’t be sued for whatever a kid sees on the platform, for whatever happens to the kid. And that’s why here we are, you know 20 years into the social media era, and these companies have never, ever faced a jury, they’ve never been held responsible, they have never had to pay damages for what they’ve done to, I believe, literally millions of kids. Um. And so that’s the background. So what happened was a group of lawyers worked very hard to come up with a very specific claim. They were looking for young people who weren’t harmed because somebody posted something that upset them or told them to kill themselves. They were harmed because the platform was designed such that they were addicted and that was what the case turned on. Was it really addiction? Or was it just, yeah, you know, she used it a lot like, you know, I eat too much chocolate or whatever. And um the jury had to decide, was was Kaley addicted? Um. Kaley is the this one plaintiff in this one particular case. Was she addicted? They had to decide, did they know um that it was addictive? Uh. Did they fail to protect or take protective actions? Um. So it was a series of questions like that. And the jury uh decided that yes, on all these questions, uh Meta and Google were both, you can’t say guilty, but they the jury found for the plaintiff that the platform is predictive, they knew it, there’s all kinds of internal memos showing it. And therefore, um they uh they are partly responsible for the various mental disorders that she developed due to her addiction. 

Jane Coaston: Now we’re going to get to the Section 230 conversation in a minute because I am one of Section 230’s greatest defenders. I love Section 230, greatest law ever. 

Jonathan Haidt: Ok great. I’d love to talk about it with you.

Jane Coaston: But we’re going, we’re gonna get to that. 

Jonathan Haidt: All right. 

Jane Coaston: But you’ve long been campaigning against the use of social media by young people. And you’ve written about how other countries like Australia are taking action on that front. What do you think these rulings against Meta, against YouTube, uh Snap, which ows Snapchat, and TikTok had already settled with the California plaintiff. What do you think those rulings mean for both these companies and for efforts to limit social media access by children? 

Jonathan Haidt: So I think the meaning is a gigantic reversal of the burden of proof. So the way this all happened was, you know the early internet in the ’90s was amazing. And so we start with this early open internet. People get very idealistic. We all thought, oh, it’s open. People are being creative. They’re putting content out just from the goodness of their heart. So we all start off very positive. And of course, free speech advocates, libertarians are thrilled by the possibility of this this, you know, utopian dream of a place where people can just create their own societies. So we start off that way and anybody wants to argue, no, wait a second, wait, you don’t, we shouldn’t be letting kids do this. The burden of proof was entirely on them. So that was going on for really 20 years was the idea that, you, you know people like me, researchers who are saying that there’s a problem or Jean Twenge we have to climb mountains to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was harmful. And I think what we’re seeing now is now that almost everybody sees it, almost everybody who’s a parent, who has teenagers, has seen what these platforms do, if not to their own child, then to their kid’s friends. So what we’ve seen in the last year is a huge reversal where it was like the emperor’s new clothes moment, where it’s like everyone sees that everyone sees that this is harming kids at an industrial scale. So I think we’re in a new world and now the burden of proof has shifted and new technologies like AI, I think people would be more receptive to the idea that we shouldn’t just put chatbots in teddy bears and give them to kids and then we’ll wait 20 years and see what happens to them. Um. I think we’re gonna see a lot more pressure for companies to prove that their product is safe before they’re spread out to all of humanity. 

Jane Coaston: Let’s back up a bit because I want to get at your bigger point about the work that you do. What do you think social media is doing to young people? 

Jonathan Haidt: There are many, many different avenues of harm. So the most basic is just that it pushes everything else out because it is addictive. It tends to take up, the average kid watches five hours of social media a day if you include YouTube, most of that is short videos. So just by pushing out sleep, sunshine, exercise, time with friends, eye contact, just by pushing that out for all of the kids and not all, I mean, most of the kids in the country, the average is five hours, a lot are on seven hours a day. And then there’s lots of other activities that bring it up to around 12 for a lot of kids. So that’s the simplest one. That’s undeniable, that if you’re spending five to ten hours a day on this stuff, it pushes everything else out, including sleep. And then there’s the area that all the academic debate is about is, does heavy use of this cause depression and anxiety? Or is it just correlated? So that’s where almost all the debate is among the researchers. But there are so many other harms that we’re not even talking about. So that’s why it’s so important to have an age limit. This is not even close. The question of should 11-year-olds be on Instagram? This is not close. 

Jane Coaston: I want to go back, actually, to Section 230, which you mentioned. And I think that one of the challenges is that Section 230 does a lot of different things. TheyIt’s not about platforms or websites, it’s about third-party content. It provides social media companies with legal cover, but it also provides you, Jonathan, with legal coverage. You have a substack called After Babble, and you could not be sued if someone came into the comments of your substack and threatened to kill someone else. 

Jonathan Haidt: I’m totally down with that. We totally agree. 

Jane Coaston: Right. 

Jonathan Haidt: I love it. Love it. 

Jane Coaston: So I think the challenge is, and I’m interested because you’re sounding on board with my good friend, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The challenge is that among the aspects of the California suit was aspects of these sites like infinite scroll or algorithms that make websites more appealing or they start pushing things to you. Now, if you talk to libertarians and free speech advocates, They say like Section 230 is critical to protecting not just the rights of internet users, but basically how the internet functions. What do you think should happen to Section 230, given that Congress wasn’t ready for algorithms or infinite scroll and given all of these lawsuits? 

Jonathan Haidt: Right. So I think that’s very well framed because this was created at a time when we thought the internet was a big bulletin board. I think, look, you and I agree, Section 230 in its original design was essential. We can’t get rid of Section 230 and not replace it with a different version of Section 230. So maybe you know the history better than I do. As I understand it, as the internet developed and then the courts had to decide, does Section 230 offer protection for this case, this case, this case, this case, um it was interpreted very, very broadly. So what I would like to see is, again, I’m not a legal expert, so this might not be right, but what I would like to see is Congress should just specify, here’s section 230, there’s been ambiguity about how it’s interpreted, we mean it to mean this. And it does not protect you from decisions, business decisions, design decisions. Um. Just let’s get back to the original, a narrower view of the original reading. 

Jane Coaston: Now something that’s always been interesting to me is that it was Meta that put forward a big campaign saying, yeah, we want changes to section 230 because– 

Jonathan Haidt: Yeah that’s right. 

Jane Coaston: They were the company that was large enough to be able to fund whatever those changes would look like, other companies could not. Meta in response to these suits has said that they are going to appeal in New Mexico and that they will likely do so in California. And they have said, you know, we have these protections. Obviously they’re not fail safe, but we do have these protections and I believe YouTube has as well. They’ve also argued they’re not a social media site. In your ideal world, how would you like to see tech companies like Meta change their policies to protect kids moving forward? 

Jonathan Haidt: Well the I mean, something as basic as their own policies say, and and COPPA, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, says they shouldn’t be having kids under 13. But we know that they know, I mean this is what all the internal documents show. So I just wanna ask you, do you think that Meta’s decision to go after preteens is protected by section 230? 

Jane Coaston: I think that Meta’s decision to do a lot of things is not protected by Section 230. Again, because–

Jonathan Haidt: Right. 

Jane Coaston: Section 230 has to do with third-party content, it does not have to do with recruiting users. Again, this is why this issue is so complicated because the rest of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was struck down by the Supreme Court. Section 230 was not. But again, it was written for bulletin boards. 

Jonathan Haidt: Yeah. Yeah, that’s right. 

Jane Coaston: And so you’re saying, you know, if we, if meta enforced its actual policies, stopped trying to market to preteens. But what are additional policies? Because I clearly, okay, it’s fine if you’re 14, it isn’t going to work for you, I’m gonna guess. 

Jonathan Haidt: Well, yeah. So look, if these companies had been responsible all along, like say Pinterest. Pinterest has been responsible once Bill Ready took it over. Pinterest, like every platform, had a problem with men trying to get naked pictures of girls. Um. And Bill Ready put a stop to it by saying, you know what? How about no social features if you’re under 16? Like you cannot communicate with people. Um. So you know if all the companies were like that, like they’re actively looking to protect kids. They’re trying to run a business. Well, if that was the case then I’d be much more open to the idea of, well, let’s work with the companies. Let’s get some design changes. But Meta in particular, but also Snapchat um and to, you know, to some extent, Google and certainly TikTok. All of these companies have shown over and over again. It’s clear they do everything they can to get around the rules, to get to kids, to beat their competitors. Um. And if these are the kind of predatory companies that own our children’s childhood, these four or five companies literally own most of our kids’ day. Even when they’re not looking at the screen, they’re thinking about the drama. How did it happen that these companies were given a free pass? As a psychologist, we we know if you incentivize one sort of behavior and you free people from consequences, you’re gonna get a lot of bad behavior and that’s what happened. 

Jane Coaston: Jonathan, thank you so much for taking the time to join me. 

Jonathan Haidt: My pleasure, Jane. 

Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation. Thanks so much for listening to our show, and yes, thank you for recommending our show on social media. You can also subscribe, leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today. 

[sung] Headlines. 

Jane Coaston: Joining me is Crooked’s Washington correspondent, Matt Berg, to talk about the big stories. Hey Matt. 

Matt Berg: Hey Jane. 

Jane Coaston: I hear you have something that’s actually fun and good to tell us about. 

Matt Berg: I do. Here’s part of my conversation with Emily Gregory, who just flipped a Florida state representative seat. 

[clip of Emily Gregory] I encourage anyone thinking about running for office. If you think you should and people tell you you’re your bonkers, maybe you still should because I can tell you, nobody thought that this was within reach. I, myself, my husband and like two friends at a kitchen table, there was like a handful of freedom fighters that were like, I don’t know, I think we can just do it. Like, let’s just get do it. 

Jane Coaston: Gregory just flipped the Florida State House seat in a district that contains Trump’s home and safe space, Mar-a-Lago. Can you tell me more about her and about this race? 

Matt Berg: Yeah, it’s a stunning win that no one saw coming. She had never even run for public office before. She owns a fitness studio in Palm Beach that is focused on helping pregnant women. Um. Her predecessor was a Republican who won the seat by 19 points in 2024. She won by more than two points, running on an agenda on affordability and really focusing on local issues that residents there care about, such as, you know, property insurance reform. It’s also a warning sign for Trump ahead of the midterms. There’s been this trend lately that you’ve probably seen in which Democrats in small local races are just outperforming Republicans by a lot. On the national scale, it’s not a huge deal, but it is a bellwether for how um Republicans might fare in the mid-terms as Trump keeps doing increasingly unpopular things. 

Jane Coaston: Yeah, I would be very curious how many members of Mar-a-Lago voted for her. It is also worth noting that Trump endorsed Gregory’s opponent and voted by mail after spending years railing against voting by mail. He frequently votes by mail, which is this funny thing, like a level of cognitive dissonance in which he will continue to do this thing while he declares it to be the most fraudulent thing in the entire world, which it would be funnier if he wasn’t trying to eliminate vote by mail. 

Matt Berg: That’s right. And it also just goes to show that his opinion in his own hometown doesn’t really matter all that much, it seems, which is pretty shocking. And I mean, speaking of Trump being unpopular, there’s news regarding Iran today and how the majority of Americans think that the US military has gone too far in its strikes on Iran, according to the Associated Press. Meanwhile, there was a report in NBC News that’s making a lot of waves about how Trump’s aides reportedly show him video montages of successful big strikes on Iran every morning. One official described the montage as quote, “stuff blowing up,” which explains a lot. 

Jane Coaston: Stuff going boom seems to contrast with Trump’s alleged peace talks with Iran over the past few days, and I keep saying alleged. And we’re learning more now, and now I wouldn’t really call them talks. The Iranian foreign minister also said that, quote, “we do not plan on any negotiations with the United States.” That came after Iran rejected a 15-point ceasefire proposal from the United States, the key points reportedly focused on sanctions relief, rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, which I thought we obliterated. And reopening the Strait of Hormuz oil transit route, which, for the record, again, it’s closed because we went to war. 

Matt Berg: Right. And Iran has a few words to say about this proposal. They offered their own counterpoints, which included the U.S. recognizing that Iran has control over the strait. And more notably, Iran is asking for reparations for war damages that the U.S. has caused in their campaign. 

Jane Coaston: Yeah. And I don’t think Trump would give Iran wads of cash as an apology, but apparently he will do that to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, which, you know, what a time we’re all living in and those sanctions being lifted would be worth about $14 billion, which is sort of like wads of cash, but speaking of cash, Trump also apparently doesn’t want cash from Elon Musk. The tech gazillionaire recently offered to cover TSA agents’ pay during the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, which is in its fifth week. But the White House said no, according to CBS News, because they believe the shutdown will be over soon. Though I sneakily also suspect that they don’t want TSA agents to get paid in order to make life even harder for Democrats. 

Matt Berg: Yeah, this is a pretty bold thing for the White House to believe. You might remember on Tuesday, there was a lot of talk about how there’s going to be a deal at any moment about DHS and how Republicans and Democrats were about to sign something to reopen the government. That did not happen. And it still does not seem like Republicans and Democrats are that close to a deal. Um. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, quote, “We thought there had been some progress, But then Republicans sent us their counteroffer yesterday. And it contained nothing that had been talked about.” So things don’t seem to be going so great in the talks in Congress. And at the same time, the acting TSA administrator is issuing a lot of warnings about what the shutdown could mean for airports and TSA. The shutdown has caused, quote, “the highest wait times in history at airports,” according to the TSA acting administrator. And those shortages could even cause airports to close. 

Jane Coaston: It’s also worth noting that Trump doesn’t seem to want to end the shutdown in the first place. According to Politico, Trump said, quote, “I think any deal they make, I’m pretty much not happy with it.” It’s really hard to negotiate when one person just doesn’t want to. But Matt, I always want to hang out with you. 

Matt Berg: I will negotiate with you anytime. 

Jane Coaston: Thanks, Matt. 

Matt Berg: Thanks for having me. 

Jane Coaston: And that’s the news. [music break] 

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, celebrate the fact that you’re not insane. Most Americans oppose the war in Iran and think Trump is doing a bad job, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how new polling from Fox News found that 64% of Americans think Trump is screwing up in Iran, and 59% of Americans disapprove of how Trump is doing overall, the lowest in either of his terms in the White House, like me. What a Day is also a nightly newsletter, check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston and finally, I have the majority opinion. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Fohr. Our producer is Caitlin Plummer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, and Ethan Oberman. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. Our theme music is by Kyle Murdock and Jordan Cantor. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]