An Honest Conversation on the Hyper Connected and the Hyper Lonely

21 Jan 2026 09:30h - 10:00h

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion at Davos focused on the relationship between technology, social media, and rising loneliness among young people, featuring organizational psychologist Adam Grant, Pinterest CEO Bill Ready, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, and software engineer Jenny Kim. Haidt presented alarming data showing that feelings of meaninglessness among 18-year-olds doubled between 2012 and recent years, arguing that digital platforms cannot substitute for physical, embodied interactions essential for healthy child development. He advocates for keeping children away from social media until age 16 and implementing phone-free schools, citing evidence that such policies reduce bullying and increase real-world social interaction.

Ready, despite running a social media platform, largely agreed with Haidt’s concerns, revealing that Pinterest disabled social features for users under 16 and actively encourages users to engage in offline activities. He described current social media as fundamentally unsafe for children under 16, comparing the industry to Big Tobacco in its harmful effects. Jenny Kim, representing Gen Z, offered a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging she uses AI companions for emotional support when friends aren’t available due to time zones, but emphasized these are supplements to, not replacements for, real relationships.

The discussion highlighted the collective action problem parents face, where individual restrictions can lead to social isolation. Grant raised concerns about AI companions creating one-sided relationships that lack the reciprocal value exchange essential for healthy human development. The panelists concluded that legislative solutions, similar to Australia’s under-16 social media ban, combined with industry accountability and phone-free schools, represent the most promising path forward to address this crisis affecting human capital development globally.

Keypoints

Major Discussion Points:

– Technology’s impact on youth development and mental health: The conversation centers on how digital platforms and social media have contributed to rising rates of meaninglessness and anxiety among young people, with Jonathan Haidt presenting data showing dramatic increases in these issues starting around 2012.

– The debate over age restrictions and digital literacy: A key tension emerges between those advocating for keeping children away from social media until age 16 (Haidt, Ready) versus teaching digital self-regulation skills earlier (Jenny Kim), highlighting the challenge of preparing youth for a digital world while protecting their development.

– AI companions and attachment concerns: The discussion explores the growing reliance on AI for emotional support among young people, with concerns about how this affects the development of real human relationships and social skills, particularly the inability to contribute meaningfully to one-sided AI relationships.

– Collective action solutions and policy approaches: The conversation focuses on systemic solutions like phone-free schools, raising minimum ages for social media, and the need for coordinated efforts between parents, schools, and governments to break out of collective action problems where individual families struggle to opt out alone.

– Business model reform and regulatory needs: The participants discuss how current social media business models incentivize engagement through division and addiction, with calls for thoughtful regulation similar to automotive safety standards and examples of alternative approaches like Pinterest’s modifications for younger users.

Overall Purpose:

The discussion aims to examine the relationship between technology and human connection, particularly focusing on loneliness and social development issues among young people, while exploring both the problems created by current digital platforms and potential solutions through policy, business model changes, and collective action.

Overall Tone:

The conversation maintains a serious, concerned tone throughout, with participants expressing genuine alarm about the scale of the problem affecting young people. While there are moments of disagreement (particularly between generational perspectives), the tone remains collaborative and solution-focused. The urgency intensifies as the discussion progresses, with Haidt using particularly strong language about “destroying human capital” and the need for immediate action, though the conversation ends on a cautiously optimistic note about potential solutions and regulatory progress.

Speakers

– Adam Grant – Organizational psychologist (moderator)

– Jonathan Haidt – Social psychologist, author of “The Anxious Generation”

– Bill Ready – CEO of Pinterest

– Jenny Kim – Software engineer from Sol, Global Shaper

– Audience – Various audience members asking questions

Additional speakers:

None – all speakers in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

Full session report

Technology, Loneliness, and Youth Development: A Comprehensive Discussion at Davos

Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion at Davos brought together leading voices to examine the critical relationship between technology, social media, and rising loneliness amongst young people. The panel featured organizational psychologist Adam Grant as moderator, alongside social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (author of “The Anxious Generation”), Pinterest CEO Bill Ready, and software engineer Jenny Kim from Sol, representing the Global Shaper community.

The conversation revealed striking consensus amongst speakers that current social media platforms pose significant risks to children, with even a tech industry CEO advocating for age restrictions and regulation. However, meaningful disagreements emerged around implementation strategies, particularly between protection-focused approaches and digital literacy education. The discussion highlighted alarming data about youth mental health while exploring both fundamental problems created by current digital platforms and potential solutions through policy reform, business model changes, and collective action.

The Scale of the Crisis: Evidence of Youth Mental Health Decline

Jonathan Haidt opened the discussion by presenting what he called “the saddest graph” – data showing that the percentage of 18-year-olds agreeing with statements like “my life feels meaningless” or “I have no purpose” doubled between 2012 and recent years. This timing coincided precisely with the widespread adoption of smartphones and social media platforms, establishing a foundation for understanding the crisis that extends beyond screen time concerns to fundamental questions about purpose and human development.

Haidt identified 2012 as a critical inflection point, marking the transition from flip phones to smartphones and the rise of social media platforms. This timing correlation between technology adoption and mental health deterioration provided crucial context for understanding why traditional approaches to digital wellness have proven insufficient.

Bill Ready reinforced these concerns with data from Pinterest’s user research, revealing that roughly half of all young people wish social media didn’t exist. Ready noted that few products exist where most users wish the product didn’t exist, typically only occurring with addictive substances. This insight challenged the narrative that young people are simply choosing these platforms freely, instead revealing what speakers consistently referred to as a collective action problem where individuals feel trapped by social expectations.

The Biological Foundation: Physical Development Needs vs Digital Substitutes

A central theme throughout the discussion was Haidt’s argument about the fundamental incompatibility between human developmental needs and digital interaction. He emphasized that humans are “physical, embodied, evolved creatures” who develop through specific types of interaction that cannot be replicated digitally. Children need to “wrestle and touch and share food and play synchronous games like patty cake” to develop proper social skills and friendships.

This biological framing shifted the conversation from questions about better digital design to whether digital substitutes can ever be adequate for healthy child development. Haidt argued that the physical, embodied experiences essential during puberty—including awkward social interactions, physical play, and face-to-face relationship building—have been greatly diminished by digital alternatives.

The implications extend beyond screen time concerns to fundamental questions about human development in the digital age. If children require physical, synchronous interaction to develop properly, then even well-designed digital platforms may be insufficient substitutes during critical developmental periods.

Business Model Problems and Industry Accountability

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the economic incentives driving harmful platform design. Bill Ready provided a frank assessment of industry practices, describing current social media as fundamentally unsafe for children under 16. He explained that platforms profit from “attention hacking” and “engagement via enragement,” creating what he termed a market failure where negative outcomes for users translate to positive outcomes for platforms.

Ready detailed specific harmful features, including friendship ranking apps that he described as “literally the worst thing you could do to a teenage girl” – apps that rank friends in order and notify users when their ranking changes. These examples illustrated the deliberate nature of features designed to maximize engagement through social anxiety and comparison.

Despite running a social media platform himself, Ready revealed that Pinterest had already disabled social features for users under 16 and actively prompts school-age users during school hours to focus on their studies. With more than half of Pinterest’s platform being Gen Z users, and after nine consecutive quarters of record high users, Ready’s willingness to critique industry practices and implement protective measures proved particularly significant.

However, Ready acknowledged that individual company initiatives cannot solve systemic problems without broader industry reform. He drew parallels to automotive safety regulations, arguing that well-designed regulation can drive innovation rather than stifle it, creating level playing fields where all platforms must meet basic safety standards.

The AI Companion Challenge: Attachment Hacking and Relationship Development

The discussion took on additional urgency when addressing AI companions, which Haidt described as “attachment hacking” – a more dangerous evolution beyond “attention hacking.” He explained that AI companions exploit fundamental psychological systems governing human bonding, potentially undermining the development of real romantic relationships and friendships.

Adam Grant contributed a crucial insight about the one-sided nature of AI relationships, noting that healthy human development requires reciprocal relationships where individuals can contribute value to others. AI companions, by design, cannot receive meaningful contributions from users, creating relationships that may feel supportive but lack the reciprocal value exchange essential for social skill development.

Jenny Kim provided a contrasting perspective as a Gen Z software engineer who openly uses AI companions for emotional support. She argued that AI can serve as helpful supplemental support when human friends are unavailable due to time zones or circumstances, emphasizing that these tools should supplement rather than replace human relationships. Her nuanced view challenged binary framing of AI as either beneficial or harmful.

This generational divide highlighted broader questions about technology adaptation and the potential for healthy usage patterns amongst digital natives who have grown up with these tools.

Policy Solutions and the Protection vs Education Debate

The discussion revealed strong consensus around the need for collective action through policy intervention, though speakers disagreed on specific implementation approaches. Haidt advocated for his four specific norms: “no smartphone before 14, no social media before 16, phone-free schools, and far more independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world.”

Phone-free schools emerged as a particularly promising intervention, with Haidt citing evidence of reduced bullying and increased social interaction. He noted that teachers report hearing “laughter in the hallways again” when phones are removed from schools, suggesting immediate positive impacts on peer interactions.

However, one of the most significant disagreements centered on whether children should be protected from technology through restrictions or taught to manage it through digital literacy education. Haidt argued forcefully that children cannot self-regulate against deliberately addictive technologies designed by experts, making protection more important than education.

Jenny Kim countered with concerns about unintended consequences, citing South Korea’s experience with gaming restrictions where children found workarounds by using their parents’ authentication details. She emphasized that children need to learn self-control and digital management skills rather than face universal restrictions, warning that restrictions might leave children unprepared for eventual technology use.

This debate reflected deeper philosophical differences about human agency, child development, and the role of regulation in society, with generational differences evident between those who experienced pre-digital childhoods favoring protection and digital natives emphasizing adaptation.

Global Policy Momentum and Implementation Challenges

The discussion referenced growing global momentum for youth protection policies. Haidt mentioned meeting with President Macron and noted that Australia, France, the UK, the EU, and New York state have all implemented or are considering phone-free school policies and social media age restrictions.

This policy momentum reflects what Ready described as bipartisan parental concerns that transcend typical political divisions. The shared experience of parents struggling with children’s technology use has created unusual political consensus around the need for protective measures.

However, speakers acknowledged significant implementation challenges. Jenny Kim raised concerns about creating social isolation for children when restrictions are implemented unevenly across peer groups, and noted that restrictions can also affect vulnerable populations like elderly individuals who rely on digital services for basic needs, citing examples of elderly people unable to call taxis due to app-only services.

Broader Perspectives and Balanced Approaches

Throughout the discussion, speakers acknowledged both benefits and harms of technology. Haidt noted positive uses like FaceTime for international communication, while Ready mentioned beneficial applications like AI personal tutoring for disadvantaged students. The conversation also touched on nostalgia for pre-digital childhood, with Grant referencing how his children express longing for the 1980s and 1990s depicted in shows like Stranger Things.

Ready brought personal perspective to the discussion, sharing his background as the first in his family to go to college and how SAT prep materials helped him access educational opportunities, illustrating how technology can provide valuable access to resources.

The speakers identified several potential compromise approaches, including allowing limited, supervised technology use in social contexts and implementing gradual restrictions rather than complete bans. Haidt emphasized that removing technology is insufficient without providing meaningful alternatives, suggesting the need for environments where children can have independence without devices.

Conclusion: Urgency and Collective Action

The discussion concluded with recognition of both the urgency of the problem and the complexity of implementing effective solutions. The strong consensus amongst diverse speakers – academic researcher, industry CEO, and young user – suggests significant momentum for policy change and industry reform.

However, the conversation revealed that the path forward requires coordinated efforts between parents, schools, governments, and technology companies. The challenge lies in protecting children during critical developmental periods while preparing them for healthy technology use as adults, avoiding unintended consequences, and ensuring that solutions don’t create new forms of inequality or exclusion.

The discussion ultimately framed the issue as a fundamental question about human development and social connection in the digital age. With growing global policy momentum and increasing recognition of the collective action problem, significant changes appear forthcoming, though their specific implementation and effectiveness remain to be determined through continued research and real-world testing.

Session transcript

Adam Grant

Hi, everyone. I’m Adam Grant, organizational psychologist. I’m here with Bill Ready, CEO of Pinterest, Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation, social psychologist, and Jenny Kim from Sol, who’s a software engineer and a global shaper.

We’re here to talk about connection and loneliness. And John, I want to start with you. My 17-year-old tells me that thanks to technology, she is in close touch with her friends on five continents that she met at a summer program two years ago.

Never would have happened in the past. So clearly, technology is making everything better, right?

Jonathan Haidt

Sure, of course. Until recently, technology made things easier. And the idea that you could talk for free with people around the world, say on FaceTime, is wonderful.

That is great. But that’s not really what happened to young people. So the saddest graph in my book, The Anxious Generation, is the one about what 18-year-olds in the United States, whether they agree with this statement, my life feels meaningless, or I have no purpose.

And those numbers were very low, about 8% or 9% in the 90s, and all the way up to 2010, 2011, no change. And all of a sudden, 2012, you get a big elbow and it doubles over the next 8 or 10 years. Young people feel useless, pointless, all they do is consume, because they are useless.

They’re not really doing anything. All they’re doing is consuming. And the main point I want to make here is that we are physical, embodied, evolved creatures.

We develop in a certain way with a kind of give and take. We’re physical. Children need to wrestle and touch and share food and play synchronous games like patty cake.

All that stuff is how you develop friendships. It’s all gone now, or at least greatly diminished. I do not believe that there are digital substitutes for children growing up.

I think the only answer here is keep them off. If you want to prepare your children for the digital age, keep them the hell away from these digital products until they’re done with puberty, which is around 16. I’ll just start with that by putting that steak in the ground.

Adam Grant

Okay. Jenny, I think you belong to Gen Z. Do you feel like you’re pointless?

Jenny Kim

Well, not really. I’m part of Global Shapers, so probably we’re the youngest population among all the people in the World Economic Forum. I do see the literature that suggests that the youngest population are the loneliest population among all, but I don’t think it’s just about technology.

We should also think about how political, educational, geographical, economical factors all factor in. Maybe it’s not the technology that’s making people lonely, but maybe there are other factors to that. For my experience, I studied in the United States in the Bay Area, and I also worked there.

I moved back to Korea. Digital platform is the way to keep my long-distance friendship, so I have a slightly take on this.

Adam Grant

Okay. Bill, you are running a social media platform, and you’ve really departed from the norm in saying, I do not want to just hijack your attention.

Bill Ready

Yes. Actually, this is a point, John and I have spoken a lot about this together, actually significantly agree with John’s points. In fact, one of these I did shortly after coming in as CEO of Pinterest three and a half years ago was turn off all the social features for under 16, for exactly the reasons John just mentioned.

Stated simply, even as somebody who has been inside these platforms, understands how these algorithms work, I do think social media as currently configured is not safe for users under 16, full stop. We acted with our own actions and turned that off. A thing I’ll share that I think is, by the way, it’s not the full solution.

I think there are many other issues at play here, of course. People thought that it would be the end of our platform with young users. In fact, at the time I came in as CEO, Pinterest was declining in users.

It was seen as aging up and aging out. As of our last quarter, nine, three quarters of record high users, more than half the platform is Gen Z. One of the primary reasons they say they come to Pinterest is they see it as an oasis away from the toxicity they experience elsewhere.

I share that not to say, hey, look at us, but to say the kids are smarter than you think. I think the kids know they’re not all right. They just haven’t had better alternatives.

By the way, I also agree that better alternatives shouldn’t just be digital. A lot of what we’re doing on our platform is trying to encourage people to get off the platform, to help them make connections in the real world, to help them engage in activities outside of the digital experience.

Tangible example of this, if we see a school-age user come to the platform during school hours, we’ve advocated for phone-free schools and things like that alongside of John and others, but if somebody of school age comes to our platform during school hours, we will give them a prompt that says, hey, we love you, which means we also care about your education.

Come back and see us after school. We actually think it’s really important that you engage with people in the classroom for your learning. I share that to say I do think, yes, I agree in the problem statement.

I also think an alternative is possible, and I think young people are looking for those alternatives. I think if we can do more to give them those alternatives, not just digitally, but in the physical world, all the other constructs, I think there’s real demand for it. There’s hunger for it.

Adam Grant

Well, I think to build on that, one of the most troubling symptoms that I’ve seen in the last year is reliance on AI companions has exploded. I think a majority of young people will say in most developed countries that they have an AI companion that they rely on for emotional support and advice, not just information, and a minority of those people actually prefer the AI companion to a human.

What are we going to do about that?

Jonathan Haidt

Yeah. So even before AI companions, one of the main things said about Gen Z, especially the boys, is very lacking in social skills, high contact, not really suitable for collaboration. That was before AI.

What social media did is called attention hacking. They studied the dopamine system. They learned all about brain development.

They hacked the attention system so they could take all of your attention onto their platform, fighting with each other to get more. So that’s attention hacking. What’s really frightening is that now it’s attachment hacking.

Many of you know what the attachment system is. It’s the thing with all mammals that links you to the mother or caretaker, but it’s a give and take thing where you then go off and play, and if something goes wrong, you come back and you have a secure base.

So all of that is the attachment system, which is certainly the foundation of adult romantic love in marriage. If you have a healthy attachment system, you’re much more likely to have a successful romantic relationship. Then there’s also friendships, which are awkward and hard and you need a lot of practice.

AI companions take all of it away. Technology is great as a shortcut. Technology helps us be more effective in doing the things we want to do.

It makes it easy. Children need to do hard things thousands and thousands of times. Now that they have AI for everything, they’re not doing hard things, which means they will not develop, which means they will not be very useful as employees or as spouses.

Adam Grant

Jenny, talk to us about your colleagues and your friends. Do you see people relying on AI companions?

Jenny Kim

At least for me, I do sometimes rely on AI companions because I really want to be met with empathy. So whenever I’m talking to my friends, for instance, if I’m nervous speaking at Davos, my friends can limitlessly listen and also we have a time difference.

Jonathan Haidt

Your AI friends, you’re calling them your friends? I mean, AIs?

Jenny Kim

Yeah, some large language models. We have to get used to this terminology. I’ll just prompt it and be like, oh, I’m so anxious.

The AI will be like, oh, you’ll do great. I need that word of affirmation. So I do use it that way as a Gen Z.

Also, not just the AI for digital platforms. When I was studying, when I first moved to the United States as a college student, I feel deeply lonely at times because I moved away from home for the first time in a young age. And looking at social media didn’t really help at all because I knew that we’re not having a meaningful conversation, nor I’m sharing my highs and lows with my friends.

It was just a unilateral conversation. But with LLMs, actually, I feel like I’m having some unilateral conversation, though I would have to say that it has to be backed up by physical relationship with real people. It’s not just the AI who can be my friends and my colleague.

I need to have a real human interaction. And I feel like for some missing parts, like if I can talk to my friends due to the time zone, or if I want to discuss something very technical, I use AI as my companion, but it’s not a replacement for them.

Jonathan Haidt

But if you spend a lot of time with it and a lot of it, your thought, isn’t that going to make you less likely to do the hard work of making a friend or talking to someone? Doesn’t one substitute for the other?

Jenny Kim

Our topic is about loneliness. For me personally, I don’t think LLMs or AI models are actually taking loneliness away from me. It’s just a substitute when my friends are not available.

I prefer to have physical relationship with my friends, and I would like to get AI’s help to schedule some time with my friends or get their posts as an algorithm. So I feel like it’s actually being used as a substitute or more like a way to strengthen my relationship with physical bodies, like physical people, like in this real world.

Adam Grant

It seems much healthier than the alternative. One of the things that worries me a lot about AI companions though is in real human relationships, there is, as John was pointing out earlier, a give and take, right? We want to feel that we matter, and that’s not just about being valued by others.

It’s also making a difference, having something to contribute to others. You cannot add any value to an AI companion, right? That is a one-sided relationship, and that seems to me very dangerous.

Bill Ready

I think this part of the dialogue sort of highlights what makes this issue so difficult, is that AI, social media, just like any technology through human history, can be used for good or for bad. I think I was the first and still the only social media CEO to say that the comparison to Big Depaco is appropriate on multiple dimensions. But one place where it’s not appropriate is that you don’t need tobacco.

I don’t know of a good use of tobacco that you really need. There are plenty of good uses of these technologies. The question is, how do you parse the good uses from the bad?

How do you think about the right guardrails? I think in these examples of one that I often cite is, you know, I thought that was a big deal, I was, first my family go to college. Needed government assistance to be able to afford to do that.

When I got to college, I realized that, oh so many people had, you know, private tutors to help them prep for the SAT, and things like that. And I just had like a used book from the library with pages missing and, you know, the only assistance I got was like, you know, some of the rows were highlighted. But, now, now everybody gets a personal tutor, right?

So, you know, that can unlock a huge amount of human creativity. At the same time, if it becomes a substitute for engaging with a live teacher or having discussions with other students, I think there’s a lot that we miss out on. And so I think this is the question is like, how do we think about guardrails around these things?

How do we, how do we get more intentional? And I say we, I think it’s, you know, part of why I’ve been outspoken about this is I do think that, you know, this industry needs more accountability. And so be the change you want to see in the world.

That’s part of what brought me to Pinterest is to say, hey, we can do this differently. And we’re certainly not perfect, but we’re trying to be much more intentional about parsing, you know, directing people to the better outcomes. And then avoiding some of the things that, you know, are negative outcomes, not for the platform.

This is the problem. This is where, even as a capitalist, I would say there’s a market failure here, which is the negative outcomes for the users are, in the current construct, positive outcomes for the platforms and the attention economy.

Staying glued to that screen is a positive outcome. But I think if you take a long-term view, it shouldn’t be, it shouldn’t be that extraordinary to say that you should care about the long-term well-being of your users. People that build any other product would generally be interested in having a repeat customer and having somebody who, like, thinks that over the, you know, that feels that over the long-term you have to help take care of them.

So we’re trying to prove that out. But I think you’ve got to take a longer-term view of these things and say, well, I may get less time on the platform today, but if I actually help somebody make a real world connection or help them with some tutoring but also gave them the confidence to engage in a real classroom with a real teacher or to get a real-life friend.

Yeah. Then you created more value, better long-term well-being. But I think this is where the business model needs to evolve and the accountability needs to evolve.

Adam Grant

Yeah. So let’s talk about some concrete solutions. John, you’ve been doing a lot of policy work.

You just met with the head of state last night. What’s getting you excited about the possibility for improving the situation?

Jonathan Haidt

Oh, my God. So what’s getting me excited is that almost everybody sees the problem. Everybody who’s a parent sees the problem.

And increasingly I’m hearing people say, it’s not just about the kids. I can’t focus. I can’t concentrate.

Adam Grant

I’m sorry. What were you saying?

Jonathan Haidt

So the fact that these companies have basically aroused the anger of the mothers of the world means that anytime anyone puts up a political proposal, it has huge public support. And so I met with President Macron last night. They’re going to push ahead in France.

I’m meeting with people in the UK, in the EU. So the legislation around phone-free schools is sweeping the world, and it’s just spectacular. People say, oh, wait.

When kids aren’t watching porn and playing video games during class, they’re actually paying attention to the teacher or their friends. So phone-free schools is the most concrete thing we can do to give all kids six or seven hours a day away from that. And the second is just raise the age to 16.

We’ve had the tech companies try to say, oh, no, we just teach kids how to use it responsibly. Yeah, who has succeeded in that? We’re all struggling.

People in Silicon Valley say just, no, you can’t use it, my kids, because I know what it does. So what gives me hope is the phone-free schools. I think 2026 is going to be the year where many countries raise the age to 16.

And if we can do that, if we can win on social media, which has been with us for a long time, we understand the damage. Then we have a chance to win on AI. But if we can’t win on social media, then it’s game over.

Just give up. Let all the kids go off into little pods and not reproduce. Seriously.

Adam Grant

I think one of the most encouraging findings so far from the phone-free schools research is reduction in bullying consistently. We saw this in Norway, right? And also an increase in reading, books getting taken out from the library, which at first sounds like a lonely activity.

But actually, you learn theory of mind when reading. You build empathy. You start to have to take a character’s perspective.

And so that seems like good news.

Jonathan Haidt

Yeah, that’s right. And the main thing we hear, what we always hear, is teachers and administrators say, we hear laughter in the hallways again. We haven’t heard that in 10 years.

Because in every school in America, at least, in between classes, everyone’s on their phone. And now my daughter goes to New York City public schools. We went all phone-free in the whole state of New York in September.

She says, Daddy, lunch is great. It’s so much better now. We’re playing games.

We’re talking. We’re making up games. So, yeah, it really works.

We’ve got to get the kids away from this and let them grow up in the physical world with each other. Then they’ll jump into the toilet bowl of life online.

Adam Grant

I’m not going to follow up on that one. I love nuance. Jenny, I want to hear you talk a little bit about the norms that you’d like to see created.

So, you know, if you think about what healthy uses of technology for connection have looked like, how can we get more of that? Do you have rules with your coworkers or with your friends around putting your phones away?

Jenny Kim

So when I was in high school, I went to a boarding school, and I went to a school in Korea where we got our laptop confiscated at night. So we’re not supposed to use our laptops in the dorm. And I really didn’t like the policy because as a high schooler, we should learn how to cope with the technology, like learn how to manage our own schedule and get used to the digital platform.

So we should learn how to, like, use laptop to gather all the information, and we should learn how to manage our time. So just banning the laptop from high school, I thought, wasn’t a really good idea. Though some parents really liked it because they’re worried their kids might just play video games at night.

Yeah, so for me, I feel like I think I’m a healthy user where, like, I don’t really rely on the social media or, like, large language model a lot. But for little kids, I think there should be some discussions on, like, how we can make a better platform and better regulations for them to grow and learn how to communicate properly. But I don’t have a kid yet, and I’m not sure, like, what would be the best way to do that is.

But I know for sure that kids should learn how to control themselves. So it shouldn’t just be, like, universal restriction on, like, you shouldn’t use your social media, like, until a certain age. But in my personal opinion, they should learn how to do it.

And as a software engineer who’s making a lot of different software, I think we should all think about how to make a more friendly platform by having the right metrics and signals to build a right platform.

Yeah.

Adam Grant

John, what is it that has convinced you we can’t teach kids up until 16 to set reasonable boundaries?

Jonathan Haidt

Yeah. One of the things that’s convinced me is that I teach courses at New York University. I have a course of undergraduates around 19 years old.

And I also teach a similar class on flourishing to my MBA students who are in their late 20s. And I love to use a computer during class. I take notes.

I look things up. But what I realized about four or five years ago, my TA said, you know, because I make every other students, I say, you can use your laptop if you stand up and pledge that you will only use it for class-related purposes.

And they do that. And then the TA told me half of the classes check in their stock portfolio, their LinkedIn, their, you know. So college students can’t handle it.

They can’t self-regulate because there’s just so much coming in. We can’t handle it. We can’t.

Well, I mean, we can sort of self-regulate. But we struggle with it. Children absolutely cannot.

They absolutely cannot. So what I’ve done and what increasing numbers of college professors are doing is saying no screens of any kind in this class. No screens.

And the students agree. They agree. And they say, wow, it’s so much.

You know, I’m paying all this money for an education. Now I’m actually listening during class. So, you know, the idea that young people need to learn, ideally they should.

But that’s the same about cigarettes and gambling and all sorts of vices. We pass laws with minimum ages when things are addictive, when there is graphic sexuality, when there is horrific violence, real-world violence, not fictional violence. Those are the reasons why we have age limits.

All three apply extremely well to social media. And so I do not believe that we need digital citizenship. We need to teach them how to use it.

No, these things are not appropriate for children. Talking with strangers and hooking yourself up to algorithms fine-tuned by gigantic, brilliant AIs to keep you, this is just not appropriate for children. If we want to teach children self-control, keep them the hell away from this stuff until their executive function develops in puberty.

We must protect puberty. If we don’t protect puberty, let alone early childhood, there’s really not much we can do.

Adam Grant

There is a complicating factor here, though. And John, you’ve acknowledged this, that because a lot of kids are on social media, if you don’t let your kid on, then they’re at risk of being isolated and ostracized even. So obviously this is a collective action problem.

But in the meantime, what is a parent to do?

Jonathan Haidt

So if an individual parent is trying to make the decision, they’re imposing a cost on their child. That’s the definition of a collective action problem. The way we escape from collective action problems is collectively.

And the kids don’t love this stuff. The kids don’t want to necessarily be on social media. What they’re afraid of is being left out.

And so one of the things we found with phone-free schools, some students object beforehand. But once the phone-free school is implemented, they mostly love it because everyone’s off and now they’re actually having fun. And so that’s why we need laws.

That’s the main way that we break collective action traps. And we need collective action among families. So if parents who have kids around the same age in a neighborhood agree to have a playborhood, it’s called.

The kids can roam around between our houses. They don’t need to check with us. They’re on their own in the afternoons.

That’s amazing. And so collective action from neighborhood to school to state or province to nation is the way we get out of this.

Bill Ready

It’s an add to that. I think, John, you’ve shared this data. It’s a pretty powerful stat.

I think roughly half of all young people wish that social media didn’t exist.

Jonathan Haidt

That’s right.

Bill Ready

So how many products do you know of that most of the people who use it wish it didn’t exist? It tends to only be things that are like vice, addiction, things like that. And these products have been designed to be addictive.

And I think part of what makes it this collective action problem is that it was designed to be addictive by hacking into things that, as a young person, used to be addictive. you are supposed to care about. As a teenager, this is where a lot of the opposition research comes from, of saying, oh, well, there’s always been teenage anxiety, right?

Every teenager, we all went through the awkward teenage years of where do we sit in the social status, and where were we in a friend group, and things like that. Is this person really my best friend? And so, yes, we all went through that.

What we didn’t go through at our age was to have an app that will say to you, oh, would you like to know where you rank in your friend group? I could tell you. For a few dollars a month, I could tell you, and then tell you.

And then the person that, you know, I thought John was my best friend, but actually, while John’s the sun in my solar system, I’m Neptune in his. What’s that do to a friend? This is real.

This is real. This is real. And then, but good news, Bill, you can improve your standing if you have more messages with John on our platform.

So this is back to why is it a collective action problem. It has been designed to be addictive and designed to tap into things that you should care about. It is right to care about forming friendships.

It is right to care about, you know, are you sort of norming and sort of figuring out how to fit in? Those are right things to care about at that age, but it’s been hacked. And so I do think that is why we can’t just say, well, the kids, you should have self-control, because they can’t just choose on their own.

It is a collective action problem, because even if I choose to sit out, and, you know, Adam and John and Jenny are all talking about, like, oh, did you see the rankings? Well, there’s an equal and offsetting effect of being left out of that conversation, right? So it is truly collective action.

Adam Grant

Jenny?

Jenny Kim

I just wanted to add one quick point. So I’m from Korea, and people like playing video games, especially during puberty. And we had a law where, I think it was after 10 PM, people who are under 16 cannot play video games, and they have to self-authenticate themselves in order to play video games after hours.

And all the kids in my middle school, they got their parents’ authentication, and they created a game account. And the parents who didn’t allow their kids to play video games were left out of the conversation. So we should also think about, like, when we impose the law, what kind of counter-effects it would have to the kids as well.

Jonathan Haidt

But those are short-term. It takes a while to change norms. And since everyone’s stuck in a trap, to say that it’s difficult to get out of the trap, therefore we shouldn’t do it, I don’t think is right.

What we’re talking about here is a scale of destruction of human capital and human potential beyond anything we’ve ever seen. OK, World War I, World War II, it’s hard to compare to those. But other than that, we are destroying human capital at a rate so vast, and not just for Gen Z, and now it appears for Gen Alpha.

Gen Z didn’t have iPads when they were two. Gen Alpha was raised with iPads from the age of two. Scrolling, scrolling, scrolling, scrolling, from the age of two.

So yes, you’re right. Some kids will feel left out. But one thing we found in the surveys of parents and of teens is nobody wishes they’d gotten the technology earlier, neither the parents nor the kids.

But a lot of people wish they had waited. So I think in the long run, they’re better off and they’ll recognize it if you wait.

Adam Grant

Yeah, I think we were watching Stranger Things with our kids. And each one of them said, I wish I grew up in the 80s or 90s. And I said, why?

And they said, just the image of all these kids riding their bikes to meet up and trying to get their walkie-talkies to work so they could figure out where to gather in person. They had nostalgia for something they’d never even experienced.

Jonathan Haidt

It’s so sad.

Adam Grant

It is sad, but it should also create a real sense of urgency in all of us. So let’s go to the audience. I’m sure people in the room have questions.

Andrew Ross reminds people that questions end in a question mark. So I will reinforce that. If you have a question, a mic will come to you.

Let’s go over here.

Audience

Thank you so much. Fascinating. I just want to follow up on this, the gaming idea and that you don’t want to feel left out.

What tangible solutions would you recommend? Because you don’t want little boys, little girls to feel like, oh, I’m not part of this. So the peer pressure is real.

What tangible solutions would you recommend?

Jonathan Haidt

Well, you have to have alternatives. And so the four norms that I recommended in The Anxious Generation to Breakout, no smartphone before 14, no social media before 16, phone-free schools, and far more independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world.

So if you were to say, you can have two hours of video games a week on weekends only, but if you have three friends over, then you can play, because at least that’s social. Anything you can do to encourage the kids getting together in person, you can be a lot looser on. They’ll share food.

They’ll share laughs. They’ll hug. They’ll wrestle.

We’ve got to get kids together. It’s not just taking away the screens.

Audience

So we’ve talked a lot about the next generation. And as a parent, I care deeply about that. But I also have aging parents.

So how should we think about any of these phenomena with an older generation?

Bill Ready

Yeah. I think these effects, while they’re most pronounced with young people, it affects all of us. One of things I would say is that this is an amazing place to gather and talk about all the most pressing issues in the world, of which there are many.

But I think one of the biggest, if not the biggest, is that we have the largest, most profitable business model in the history of humanity, has at its core driving engagement via enragement, driving division.

And if you look at all of human progress, our brains are wired fundamentally the same as they were 100,000 years ago, when we would have all been in different tribes. And the right instinct would have been, if I encounter somebody different than me, I should club them to death. And then somewhere along the way, we figured out like, oh, well, actually, if we work together, we can have agriculture, and farming, and technology.

And we can prosper together. And so all of human progress has really been about appealing to the better angels of our nature. And we now have the largest, most profitable business model in the world that has at its core preying upon the worst aspects of human nature.

And I think we see it reflected all around us. And so, yes, it’s most pronounced with young people, but it affects all of us. The one thing I would say is, I do think there’s a market failure here.

I do think we need thoughtful regulation around this. Otherwise, it’s a race to the bottom. The incentives are all wrong for businesses to change this.

And we’re trying to show a free market solution to this. I do think we need thoughtful regulation. But I think one of the things I have seen that gives me hope is that even in places where there’s lots of political division, kids are not on the political left.

They’re not on the political right. People are parents. They care about their young people.

And this is actually quite bipartisan in not just the US, countries around the world. And so if we can start fixing this for our young people, maybe we can start fixing this for others. And if you look at big tobacco, where did you take cigarettes away first?

Well, let’s make sure kids don’t get them. And they didn’t want to be left out of the smoke break at high school, right? But you took it away from young people first.

And then eventually, people are like, oh, this is actually bad for all of us. And I think if we can start with our young people here, maybe that can start to create a foundation where we can say, actually, these harms are affecting all of us. We see it all around us.

But if we can start with our kids, which it’s easier for us to agree on, maybe that can be a path to solving it more broadly.

Adam Grant

Jenny, did you want to add?

Jenny Kim

Yeah, I just wanted to add really one point. I think that’s a really crucial part of the point. And I’ve been thinking about it a lot.

Because in Korea, a couple of years ago, it was possible to get a taxi by just stopping them. But right now, elders are not able to get the taxi. So a couple of weeks ago, I had to call the taxi for a foreign old individual who wasn’t able to get the taxi to get back to their home, because they were waiting in cold for 30 minutes.

So with the technology advancement, there will be some people who will be left out. And usually, it might be the older generation. So we would also have to think about them.

And I think that’s a really important message.

Adam Grant

All right, last question right up here. We’ll do this in rapid fire, because we have one minute left.

Audience

We’ll be quick. Honestly, this conversation has been building. Last year’s Davos, Jonathan, you spoke with Governor Huckabee at the time in a policy world.

What’s your call to action for all global leaders with Australia adopting Under 16 to accelerate, from a legislative perspective, what we should be doing in schools? And for market incumbents now coming into the conversation, Bill, with you, how can we in the free market be promoting better solutions to kind of build together between public and private in the spirit of the forum and the spirit of dialogue?

Adam Grant

20 seconds, go.

Jonathan Haidt

OK. Just say, we have to realize that the internet is an amazing and varied place with a lot of areas that are wildly inappropriate for children, talking with anonymous strangers who can sextort as many people as they want.

And then they can just open more accounts if they get shut down. So we have to, and Australia helped us come to the realization that we need to do this, and that it actually is possible. So we need to do this globally.

Bill Ready

Yeah, and on the public-private part, an example I use a lot is that regulation doesn’t have to be against innovation. It’s not that long ago, a few decades back, you had many major auto manufacturers saying seatbelts were against the business model. And two things happened.

One, you had some thoughtful regulation that not only mandated seatbelts, but actually created crash test ratings. Once there was a common standard, people could innovate to exceed that standard, because now you want to put your family in the car that most exceeds that standard. And you had car companies start to build brands around safety, like Volvo is a great example of that.

So we’re trying to show that there’s real consumer demand for this, that consumers will make a choice on this. But I do think we also need the complement of that thoughtful regulation to set a baseline from which we can compete. I’d love to wake up in a world where social media companies, AI companies, tech companies competed on their safety records the same way the auto manufacturers compete on theirs.

Adam Grant

We hope to see that world in 2027. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.

Jonathan Haidt

Speech speed

208 words per minute

Speech length

2018 words

Speech time

582 seconds

Technology has created unprecedented levels of meaninglessness among young people, with rates doubling since 2012 due to lack of physical embodied development – Technology’s Negative Impact on Youth Development

Explanation

Haidt argues that while technology initially made communication easier, it has fundamentally harmed young people’s development. He emphasizes that humans are physical, embodied creatures who need physical interaction, wrestling, touching, sharing food, and playing synchronous games to develop properly, but these essential developmental activities have been greatly diminished by technology.

Evidence

Data showing that 18-year-olds agreeing with ‘my life feels meaningless’ remained stable at 8-9% from the 1990s to 2010-2011, then doubled over the next 8-10 years starting in 2012. He calls this ‘the saddest graph’ in his book The Anxious Generation.

Major discussion point

Impact of Technology and Social Media on Youth Mental Health and Development

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Agreed with

– Bill Ready

Agreed on

Social media platforms as currently designed are harmful to children under 16

AI companions represent ‘attachment hacking’ that undermines development of real social skills and romantic relationships – AI Attachment Hacking Concerns

Explanation

Haidt warns that AI companions are moving beyond attention hacking to attachment hacking, interfering with the fundamental mammalian attachment system that links individuals to caregivers and forms the foundation for adult relationships. He argues this prevents children from doing the hard work of developing social skills through thousands of repetitions of difficult social interactions.

Evidence

References to Gen Z boys being described as lacking social skills and unsuitable for collaboration even before AI companions. Explains the attachment system as the foundation for romantic relationships and friendships, noting that healthy attachment systems lead to more successful romantic relationships.

Major discussion point

AI Companions and Attachment Systems

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Agreed with

– Bill Ready

Agreed on

Current business models in social media are fundamentally problematic

Disagreed with

– Adam Grant
– Jenny Kim

Disagreed on

Role and safety of AI companions

Phone-free schools and raising social media age limits to 16 are essential policy interventions with strong public support – Policy Solutions for Youth Protection

Explanation

Haidt advocates for concrete policy solutions including phone-free schools and raising the minimum age for social media to 16. He argues these measures have widespread public support because parents universally recognize the problem, and that legislative momentum is building globally.

Evidence

Real-world alternatives and increased independence for children are essential complements to technology restrictions – Need for Real-World Alternatives

Explanation

Haidt emphasizes that simply removing screens is insufficient; children need positive alternatives including more independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world. He advocates for encouraging in-person gatherings and physical activities as essential components of healthy development.

Evidence

Recommendation of four norms: no smartphone before 14, no social media before 16, phone-free schools, and far more independence and free play. Suggestion that video game time could be allowed when friends are physically present together, as this maintains social interaction with sharing food, laughs, hugs, and wrestling.

Major discussion point

Collective Action and Social Solutions

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Bill Ready

Speech speed

200 words per minute

Speech length

Jenny Kim

Speech speed

204 words per minute

Speech length

1042 words

Speech time

305 seconds

Example from Korea where taxi-hailing moved entirely to apps, making it impossible for elderly people to get taxis by traditional methods. Personal experience helping a foreign elderly individual who waited 30 minutes in the cold because they couldn’t use the app-based system.

Major discussion point

Digital Literacy vs. Protection Debate

Topics

Development | Human rights

Adam Grant

Speech speed

192 words per minute

Speech length

767 words

Speech time

239 seconds

AI companions create one-sided relationships where users cannot contribute value, which is dangerous for human development – One-Sided AI Relationship Problem

Explanation

Grant argues that healthy human relationships require reciprocity and the ability to make a difference in others’ lives, which is impossible with AI companions. He warns that this one-sided dynamic is particularly dangerous because it prevents people from experiencing the satisfaction of contributing value to relationships.

Evidence

Observation that real human relationships involve give and take, and that feeling we matter comes not just from being valued by others but from having something to contribute to others.

Major discussion point

AI Companions and Attachment Systems

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Disagreed with

– Jonathan Haidt
– Jenny Kim

Disagreed on

Role and safety of AI companions

Audience

Speech speed

187 words per minute

Speech length

193 words

Speech time

61 seconds

Questions about practical implementation of restrictions while maintaining social inclusion for children – Implementation Challenges

Explanation

Audience members raised concerns about the practical challenges of implementing technology restrictions while ensuring children don’t feel excluded from peer groups. They sought concrete solutions for managing peer pressure and social dynamics around technology use.

Evidence

Questions about tangible solutions to prevent children from feeling left out when restrictions are implemented, and concerns about gaming restrictions creating social exclusion.

Major discussion point

Collective Action and Social Solutions

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Agreements

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers agree that children and even adults struggle with self-regulation around deliberately designed addictive technologies, making protective measures more important than simply teaching digital literacy.

Speakers

– Jonathan Haidt
– Bill Ready
– Adam Grant

Arguments

Children cannot self-regulate against deliberately addictive technologies designed by experts, making protection more important than education – Protection Over Education

Current social media business models profit from negative user outcomes through attention hacking and engagement via enragement – Business Model Problems in Social Media

AI companions create one-sided relationships where users cannot contribute value, which is dangerous for human development – One-Sided AI Relationship Problem

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge that technology has legitimate positive uses and that the problems extend beyond just young people to affect broader society.

Speakers

– Jenny Kim
– Bill Ready

Arguments

Technology can be beneficial when used appropriately, such as maintaining long-distance friendships and providing support during transitions – Technology as Connection Tool

The problem affects all age groups, not just youth, as the largest business model in history profits from division and enragement – Broader Societal Impact

Topics

Sociocultural | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Arguments

Children cannot self-regulate against deliberately addictive technologies designed by experts, making protection more important than education – Protection Over Education

Children need to learn self-control and digital management skills rather than facing universal restrictions – Digital Literacy Approach

Summary

Haidt argues that children fundamentally cannot self-regulate against deliberately addictive technologies and need protection through restrictions, while Kim believes children should learn to manage technology and develop self-control skills rather than face blanket restrictions.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Effectiveness and consequences of age-based restrictions

Speakers

– Jonathan Haidt
– Jenny Kim

Arguments

Phone-free schools and raising social media age limits to 16 are essential policy interventions with strong public support – Policy Solutions for Youth Protection

Age restrictions may have unintended consequences, as seen with gaming restrictions in Korea where children found workarounds – Potential Policy Drawbacks

Summary

Haidt advocates for strict age limits and phone-free schools as effective solutions, while Kim warns that such restrictions can have counterproductive effects, citing Korea’s gaming restrictions where children found workarounds and excluded peers whose parents were stricter.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Role and safety of AI companions

Speakers

– Jonathan Haidt
– Adam Grant
– Jenny Kim

Arguments

AI companions represent ‘attachment hacking’ that undermines development of real social skills and romantic relationships – AI Attachment Hacking Concerns

AI companions create one-sided relationships where users cannot contribute value, which is dangerous for human development – One-Sided AI Relationship Problem

AI can serve as helpful emotional support when human friends are unavailable due to time zones or circumstances, but should supplement not replace human relationships – AI as Supplemental Support

Summary

Haidt and Grant view AI companions as fundamentally harmful to human development and relationships, while Kim sees them as potentially beneficial supplements to human relationships when used appropriately and not as replacements.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Arguments

Children cannot self-regulate against deliberately addictive technologies designed by experts, making protection more important than education – Protection Over Education

Current social media business models profit from negative user outcomes through attention hacking and engagement via enragement – Business Model Problems in Social Media

AI companions create one-sided relationships where users cannot contribute value, which is dangerous for human development – One-Sided AI Relationship Problem

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge that technology has legitimate positive uses and that the problems extend beyond just young people to affect broader society.

Speakers

– Jenny Kim
– Bill Ready

Arguments

Technology can be beneficial when used appropriately, such as maintaining long-distance friendships and providing support during transitions – Technology as Connection Tool

The problem affects all age groups, not just youth, as the largest business model in history profits from division and enragement – Broader Societal Impact

Topics

Sociocultural | Economic

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Technology and social media as currently designed are causing unprecedented harm to youth development, with rates of meaninglessness among 18-year-olds doubling since 2012

Social media platforms are deliberately designed to be addictive through ‘attention hacking’ and ‘attachment hacking,’ making self-regulation nearly impossible for children and even college students

Phone-free schools consistently show positive results including reduced bullying, increased social interaction, and improved academic engagement

AI companions pose new risks by creating one-sided relationships that don’t develop real social skills or allow users to contribute value to others

This is fundamentally a collective action problem that cannot be solved by individual parents alone – it requires coordinated policy responses

The current business model of major tech platforms profits from division and negative outcomes for users, creating a market failure that affects all age groups

Children need physical, embodied experiences with peers to develop properly – digital substitutes are inadequate for healthy development during puberty

Resolutions and action items

Implement phone-free schools globally (already being adopted in France, UK, EU, and New York state)

Raise minimum age for social media to 16 through legislation

Remove social features from platforms for users under 16 (Pinterest has already done this)

Create thoughtful regulation similar to automotive safety standards that encourages innovation while setting safety baselines

Promote collective action among parents in neighborhoods to create ‘playborhoods’ where children can have independence without devices

Encourage real-world alternatives and increased independence for children as complement to technology restrictions

Unresolved issues

How to prevent children from being socially isolated when restrictions are implemented unevenly across peer groups

How to address technology inequality affecting older generations who may be left behind by digital advancement

The practical implementation challenges of age verification and enforcement of restrictions

Potential unintended consequences of restrictions, as demonstrated by gaming laws in Korea where children found workarounds

How to balance teaching digital literacy and self-control versus protecting children from deliberately addictive technologies

The broader societal impact on all age groups beyond just youth, and how to address division and enragement affecting adults

Suggested compromises

Allow limited, supervised technology use in social contexts (e.g., video games when friends are physically present)

Use AI and technology as supplements to rather than replacements for human relationships

Implement gradual restrictions (no smartphones before 14, no social media before 16) rather than complete bans

Focus on encouraging platforms to direct users toward real-world activities and connections rather than keeping them online

This real-world example of regulatory failure provides crucial evidence that age-based restrictions can have unintended consequences and may not work as intended. It challenges the assumption that legislation alone will solve the problem and highlights the importance of considering implementation challenges and cultural context.

Impact

This comment introduced important complexity to the policy discussion and forced acknowledgment that regulatory solutions need to be carefully designed. It prompted Haidt to address the short-term vs. long-term effects of policy changes and added realism to the legislative optimism expressed earlier.

Overall assessment

Explanation

Haidt emphasized that removing technology isn’t sufficient without providing meaningful alternatives for social connection and engagement

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.