{"id":437,"date":"2026-07-06T04:13:09","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T04:13:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437"},"modified":"2026-07-06T04:13:09","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T04:13:09","slug":"jonathan-haidt-why-the-right-should-support-the-social-media-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437","title":{"rendered":"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Jonathan Haidt\u2019s <\/strong><\/em>The Anxious Generation<\/strong> must count as one of the most influential books of the decade. Within a year of its publication, countries across the Western world were moving to ban smartphones in school, and prevent access to porn and social media for under-16s.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Read more The great German own goal<\/a><\/p>\n

But the politics have been surprising. The Right is increasingly sceptical of these measures on the grounds that it risks moving us towards a \u201cpapers please\u201d internet, with an end to anonymity and free discourse. In this groundbreaking interview with <\/strong><\/em>UnHerd<\/strong>\u2018s Freddie Sayers, Professor Haidt addresses their concerns directly, and makes the case why Right-wingers should support his campaign.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

What follows is a transcript of their conversation, lightly edited for clarity.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Freddie Sayers:<\/strong> Many will be familiar by now with the concerns around social media usage among younger people \u2014 and most people share those concerns to some extent. Yet a lot of people, particularly on the political Right, are increasingly anxious that the kinds of measures you\u2019ve been arguing for, and which are now finally being adopted, pose a threat to freedom of speech and the free internet. Are they wrong to be concerned?<\/p>\n

Jonathan Haidt:<\/strong> This campaign has been bipartisan almost everywhere, but the Right has, in general, been a little more supportive. Here in the UK, it\u2019s different. Why? Well, I think it\u2019s because here you\u2019ve had governments for many years now arresting people in mass numbers for tweets. We are in the country that gave us our liberal principles, the country that gave us John Stuart Mill. Your government has laws that are cracking down on what people say on content, and that is really a bad thing. And so I think many people on the Right \u2014 because they have been very much victims of that \u2014 are starting from that distrust of regulations. I want to acknowledge that that is a real risk.<\/p>\n

Whenever people think about regulation, their mind jumps to \u201cthe government is going to judge speech and decide if this passes, or this does not\u201d. Now that is a nightmare for free speech and that\u2019s something that we almost never see in the US, because that is so clearly contrary to the First Amendment. But you don\u2019t have the First Amendment here. So, the first thing to say is, when regulations focus on the content of speech, that\u2019s a problem. There are a few very limited areas where we think it\u2019s okay for the government to say, \u201cYou cannot post this, you cannot access this\u201d, but that has to be very, very rare. In the UK, there are laws that focus on content \u2014 you can\u2019t say something that will offend people in certain ways, you can\u2019t say things that you know will cause upset \u2014 and that\u2019s what leads to all the problems.<\/p>\n

What I\u2019m talking about are design-based solutions. When you say: here are the platform features that are causing the threats to children. Do they have to always be getting notifications, even at night? Is that a necessary feature? Do they have to be connected to anonymous strangers when they\u2019re 12? There are design features that can be changed that would have a huge impact on child safety, and that have generally no impact on free speech. That\u2019s where I want the UK to really focus: design-based, not content-based.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Jonathan Haidt\u2019s <\/strong><\/em>The Anxious Generation<\/strong> must count as one of the most influential books of the decade. Within a year of its publication, countries across the Western world were moving to ban smartphones in school, and prevent access to porn and social media for under-16s.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

But the politics have been surprising. The Right is increasingly skeptical of these measures on the grounds that it risks moving us towards a \u201cpapers please\u201d internet, with an end to anonymity and free discourse. In this groundbreaking interview with<\/strong><\/em> UnHerd\u2019<\/strong>s<\/strong> Freddie Sayers, Professor Haidt addresses their concerns directly, and makes the case why Right-wingers should support his campaign.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

What follows is a transcript of their conversation, lightly edited for clarity.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Freddie Sayers:<\/strong> Many will be familiar by now with the concerns around social media usage among younger people \u2014 and most people share those concerns to some extent. Yet a lot of people, particularly on the political Right, are increasingly anxious that the kinds of measures you\u2019ve been arguing for, and which are now finally being adopted, pose a threat to freedom of speech and the free internet. Are they wrong to be concerned?<\/p>\n

$$$$$$$$$$$<\/p>\n

Jonathan Haidt:<\/strong> This campaign has been bipartisan almost everywhere, but the Right has, in general, been a little more supportive. Here in the UK, it\u2019s different. Why? Well, I think it\u2019s because here you\u2019ve had governments for many years now arresting people in mass numbers for tweets. We are in the country that gave us our liberal principles, the country that gave us John Stuart Mill. Your government has laws that are cracking down on what people say on content, and that is really a bad thing. And so I think many people on the Right \u2014 because they have been very much victims of that \u2014 are starting from that distrust of regulations. I want to acknowledge that that is a real risk.<\/p>\n

Whenever people think about regulation, their mind jumps to \u201cthe government is going to judge speech and decide if this passes, or this does not\u201d. Now that is a nightmare for free speech and that\u2019s something that we almost never see in the US, because that is so clearly contrary to the First Amendment. But you don\u2019t have the First Amendment here. So, the first thing to say is, when regulations focus on the content of speech, that\u2019s a problem. There are a few very limited areas where we think it\u2019s okay for the government to say, \u201cYou cannot post this, you cannot access this\u201d, but that has to be very, very rare. In the UK, there are laws that focus on content \u2014 you can\u2019t say something that will offend people in certain ways, you can\u2019t say things that you know will cause upset \u2014 and that\u2019s what leads to all the problems.<\/p>\n

What I\u2019m talking about are design-based solutions. When you say: here are the platform features that are causing the threats to children. Do they have to always be getting notifications, even at night? Is that a necessary feature? Do they have to be connected to anonymous strangers when they\u2019re 12? There are design features that can be changed that would have a huge impact on child safety, and that have generally no impact on free speech. That\u2019s where I want the UK to really focus: design-based, not content-based.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> The current prime minister has said that he wants to bring in a ban on social media for under-16s. That includes Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, X, and Facebook. It is being described as \u201cAustralia plus\u201d, so it\u2019s a little bit stronger than what they brought in over there. Already the reaction from many people on the political Right has been that it\u2019s somehow a stalking horse. Elon Musk says it\u2019s \u201ca wolf in sheep\u2019s clothing\u201d, designed to bring in a new era of censorship. Many people are also very anxious about this. The fear is that, if you have to prove your adulthood when you access the internet, it is the beginning of a registration process and the end of online anonymity.<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> They are right to be concerned about a dystopic world in which you have to show papers to access the internet, and I can see some countries doing that. It\u2019s not that that risk isn\u2019t real. But what we\u2019re doing in Western countries, and certainly what Australia did, is nothing like that. It\u2019s not about accessing the internet, it\u2019s about the moment of account creation. If Australian kids want to go to YouTube and search for videos on \u201chow should I kill myself?\u201d, they can do that still. There is no restriction on access to content in Australia.<\/p>\n

At the moment of account creation \u2014 when you are signing a contract, with terms of service \u2014 the law at present says if you\u2019re seven years old, but you say you\u2019re 13, you\u2019re in. You can give away your data to the company, and the company can take everything from you: they don\u2019t need your parents\u2019 consent, your parents won\u2019t even know. That\u2019s the status quo around the world right now.<\/p>\n

What the Australia Bill says is that at the moment of signing a contract, the company has an obligation to verify that you are old enough to sign the contract. Otherwise, all children are on social media from the age of nine or 10.<\/p>\n

We can all agree that signing a contract is a big deal. The moment you sign that contract, you are giving away everything to a company that is going to exploit it, sell it, and use it against you. The question is, at that moment, how do you feel about giving up one bit of information \u2014 \u201care you over 16: yes or no?\u201d With device-based verification methods, if your device knows how old you are \u2014 if the Apple or Google operating system knows how old you are, as they do \u2014 if they simply say back to the platform \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d at the moment of registration, there\u2019s no privacy risk. It is a one-time check done just before you give away all your data for the rest of your life. That\u2019s what the debate is about. It\u2019s not \u201cdo I have to show a passport to access Wikipedia, or any other site?\u201d, it\u2019s \u201cwhen can I sign a contract?\u201d<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> Aren\u2019t device-based age checks ineffective, though, because many of these devices are shared between siblings. All of these platforms also have a normal-browser way of accessing them, so you just need to get a laptop in a family home and start typing in the URL, and bingo, you have access.<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> The current situation is that each kid has one or two devices. By the time you\u2019re 12, you probably have a laptop for school, and you have a phone or an iPad. Your parents don\u2019t want you going to porn, they don\u2019t want you setting up an Instagram account \u2014 but right now, they\u2019re powerless. We cannot raise our kids the way we want, we cannot stop them from opening as many accounts as they want, unless we keep them always away from the internet. The companies have pulled our kids into a trap, surrounded them with technology that we can\u2019t monitor. No matter how hard we try, we can\u2019t really do a good job of it. Parents are crying out for help.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s imagine the case where things pass in the UK, and let\u2019s hope that quickly the verification methods move towards \u201cdevice-based\u201d rather than what\u2019s happened in Australia.<\/p>\n

Australia went first, and on most of the platforms you now have a face scan. That doesn\u2019t work that well, but it\u2019s okay as a first step, just showing proof of concept. The Australian law specifically says \u201cplatforms, it\u2019s your job, but you cannot only ask for a government ID, you must provide a way to do it that does not involve an ID\u201d. And so for now, most of the platforms are using Yoti, or you can go out to another platform and do a face scan to see if you\u2019re old enough, and then come back with a signal, \u201cyes or no\u201d. So that\u2019s how things have started, and if that was the way it was going to stay, then I would not be as enthusiastic. But here\u2019s the really cool thing: the Australians have created a market for better age verification. The tech industry is nothing if not innovative and quick to meet a market need. And so once Australia announced that it was doing this, and once it was clear dozens of countries were following, many companies began competing to make better systems. Apple and Google have each come out with APIs that make it much easier for any platform to verify age. So it\u2019s getting much better.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s imagine I\u2019m a parent: I\u2019ve got a couple of kids, they each have one or two devices, and I don\u2019t want them doing these things. Now I can set their devices, and I say \u201cno, my kid is this old\u201d, and he can\u2019t change it. Now, when he uses that device, if he goes to Pornhub, he can\u2019t use it. As you said, he\u2019ll go to his older brother\u2019s device, he\u2019ll go to a friend\u2019s device. Yes, that\u2019s true. But you know what? That amount of friction would be a game-changer. Right now, every kid can check any site they want instantly: while they\u2019re waiting for an elevator, while they\u2019re sitting on the school bus, while they\u2019re in class. It\u2019s the constant access that\u2019s really devastating their attention, their development. And so, if we can introduce any friction, that would be so great. Just as we do when we say, \u201cyou know what, you can\u2019t buy alcohol, you have to find an older brother to get it for you\u201d. That\u2019s friction. Of course kids get around it, but drinking ages do work to at least lower the usage.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> Should you really have conceded that device-based is the only defensible way to do this, because there\u2019s no point doing it if it doesn\u2019t work. The other argument you hear a lot is: kids are so smart, they\u2019re going to find ways around it. Not only borrowing their older brother\u2019s hand-me-down iPhone. There\u2019s VPNs, there will be new systems just as ingenious as the new age-verification solutions. What\u2019s the argument against saying, \u201cwell, if we\u2019re going to do it, let\u2019s do it in a draconian way that actually works\u201d?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> Consider the strategic question: would it have been better if the Australians came in really draconian? I think the answer is no, because, first of all, you have to remember where the world was two years ago when they passed this legislation. People thought this was impossible to do, or that it was too bold. People will be upset. The kids will riot. It\u2019s going to be horrible. And in general, in a free country, governments should not be banning things that are popular, unless there\u2019s a damn good reason. If the legislators get too far ahead of public opinion, there\u2019s going to be a revolt.<\/p>\n

The Australians went first. They probably assumed, as we all did two years ago, that this would be very hard to do, that there would be a lot of opposition. So they went in carefully. They are exploring new territory. If they had gone in draconian, saying, \u201cRight, you just have to show us your passport, show us your driver\u2019s license\u201d, that would have been really bad. That would have been like a \u201cpapers, please\u201d social media. And so the Australians decided to go in soft \u2014 they thought, let\u2019s just first ask them to do something.<\/p>\n

That made sense when they enacted it. But since they enacted it on 10 December, there\u2019s been a global tipping point. That\u2019s because when the Australian law went into effect, there was a lot of news coverage, which was overwhelmingly positive, and a lot of commentary on social media. People were saying, \u201cLook what the Australians are doing. Hey, why can\u2019t we do that?\u201d And everybody saw that the Australian law was a good thing. This is why we saw so many countries follow in January, February, and March. In those three months, the world tipped. In those three months, we also had the trials in Los Angeles. Meta and Google were found guilty of designing for addiction, and the world saw the quotations from their staff, the quotations about how they were aiming for addiction. Grok put out the nudify button. So there was global disgust at what this is doing to kids. Now there is enormous public support from the Right and the Left: wherever you look, you find majorities of parents, often very large majorities, saying \u201cyes, we want this\u201d.<\/p>\n

And now, whoever goes in next can be more draconian. So, as a strategic question, the answer is that the Australians did the right thing by going in soft, but every other country can go in harder and harder as the technology improves, and as the public support for it improves.<\/p>\n

Read more Why populism fails<\/a><\/p>\n

FS: <\/strong>A libertarian or civil liberties campaigner listening to this interview might be concerned by what you\u2019re saying, because it implies that there is a gradually tightening noose. It\u2019s exactly what the conspiracists most fear, which is that they will start gentle, and then, as Jonathan Haidt has just confessed, every year they\u2019re going to get tighter and tighter. Fast forward five or 10 years down the line, and the free internet no longer exists.<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> That\u2019s a reasonable thing to think, because governments sometimes work that way. What I\u2019m talking about is not tightening the noose on kids or people or speech. What I\u2019m talking about is holding companies to a low standard at first, just to get started, and then raising the bar. You have to do better. As the technology improves, it should become more accurate, and more privacy preserving. That is the progress we\u2019re seeing, and that\u2019s why I\u2019m so excited about device-based verification, because it poses zero privacy risk. Nobody wants to show a driver\u2019s license to access pornography sites \u2014 there is a real risk that they would get hacked. Instead, Pornhub could just send down a ping \u2014 \u201cThis device? Yep, okay, you\u2019re in.\u201d<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> Another argument that\u2019s often made against you is that power should sit with the family, not with the government. Many conservative-minded people want solutions that are about empowering parents to better control what their kids see, rather than the word \u201cban\u201d, which is a kind of anathema. Why can\u2019t we find solutions that say, \u201cthis is a better way for mom and dad to raise their kids in the way they want\u201d?<\/p>\n

JH: <\/strong>If there was a way that parents could make these choices, and if most parents were successful in that, then I\u2019d want to follow that route, because the great majority of parents don\u2019t want their kids on Instagram or TikTok or Pornhub. But we\u2019re 15 or 20 years into the social media age, no one has found that way. Even two married parents who have PhDs, understand tech, and try really hard to restrict their kids\u2019 digital environment usually fail. A lot of people in Silicon Valley send their kids to schools with no technology. A lot of them keep their kids away from technology because they know the parental controls don\u2019t work well. It\u2019s a cat and mouse game once you go down that route. We\u2019re talking about the most equipped families, with two parents, lots of money, and lots of time. And even they can\u2019t do it.<\/p>\n

Most kids are not growing up in that environment. Most kids are growing up with a single parent or in a working-class home where there\u2019s not a lot in the way of resources, and mom says, \u201cI\u2019ve got to make dinner, here\u2019s the iPad\u201d. That\u2019s the way kids are growing up. If you say, \u201cOh, parental choice\u201d, you\u2019re condemning most kids to a life in which their parents just can\u2019t manage it, and they are basically at the mercy of all the companies.<\/p>\n

So yes, in theory, the more parental choice you give, the better. I fully agree with that, but why is it that large majorities of parents on the Left and the Right want the government to set age limits? The same goes for cigarettes: do we think it should be the parents\u2019 choice whether a kid can buy cigarettes in a store, or do we think the store should age check? Parents need help; they want an age limit, as on other dangerous products. If something is addictive, hyper sexual, or shows horrific violence, we put age limits on. Social media has all three of those properties.<\/p>\n

I would add that what I\u2019ve observed is that the social conservatives tend to be the quickest to see the threat and to want age limits. I think that\u2019s because social conservatives are the most sensitive to threats to the family \u2014 commercial incentives, porn exploitation, sexualization of girls. These companies are brilliant, they\u2019re rich, they\u2019ve hired the best psychologists, whose goal is to addict your child. That\u2019s what they\u2019re trying to do. Do families want some help guarding their kids against predatory companies? Hell, yes.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> What\u2019s interesting is that in the minds of some famous nominal social conservatives, this dilemma has played out in recent years, and the more pro-tech argument seems to have won. I\u2019m thinking, for example, of JD Vance: this is someone whose whole political outlook is based on the idea that predatory companies have hollowed out the middle class, the industrial base, that big tech has been incredibly damaging. In fact, in 2022 he gave an interview to a Catholic magazine where he called for an outright pornography ban. Now, in 2026, the same person is spending a lot of his time criticizing things like the UK\u2019s Online Safety Act and measures to control social media access as part of a stealth censorship program. What\u2019s your analysis of what\u2019s going on in that kind of political scenario?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong>\u00a0 The US has never done anything. We created this monster, we unleashed it on the world, and we said, as long as you say you\u2019re 13, you\u2019re in, and we haven\u2019t done anything since 1998 to help. The one bill that almost made it through two years ago,\u00a0 the Kids Online Safety Act [KOSA], was modeled partially on the British age-appropriate design code. It said companies have to do certain things if they\u2019re going to serve children. It didn\u2019t have an age limit, but said companies have to have age-appropriate features. And it was opposed in Congress by the Republicans. It passed the Senate 91 to three \u2014 overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate. It goes to the House, the tech industry really concentrates on the House. The objection is, this might violate free-speech. So it gets stalled.<\/p>\n

So, even though most House members were supportive, even though it passed through the first committee very strongly, it was never brought up for a vote. And the argument given by the House leadership was, \u201cOh, it has free-speech concerns.\u201d Okay, so then what happened? Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X, got involved and said that X was fine restricting it to over 16s. She got involved to try to address the free-speech concerns. She tweeted something strongly supportive of Kosa, and then Elon retweeted her, which we take to be a signal that X, Elon, Linda are supportive of protecting kids if you separate it from concerns about regulating speech. And then Donald Trump Jr. also tweeted in favor of KOSA, and then the First Lady, Melania, who was very active in supporting the non-consensual Deep Fake Porn Act \u2013 the Take It Down Act. So we have a lot of signs from the Trump administration that if we\u2019re talking about protecting kids, we\u2019re in, but if you\u2019re going to pass a law that\u2019s that says, like, \u201cYou can\u2019t say this, you can\u2019t say things that are offensive\u201d, then we\u2019re going to come down hard on you, because we know what we know what happens when you go down that road. So, again, it\u2019s about keeping them separate: we want design-based solutions that will make it safer for kids, that will allow countries and companies to age-gate, that\u2019s what we want, we don\u2019t want speech regulation \u2014 and if you separate them, then I think Vance\u2019s concerns will be satisfied.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> The strange thing, looking from outside America, is that this genius creation of social media and big tech came from there. It has conquered the world, and now it is countries outside America that are finally trying to restrict it: Australia, European countries, now the UK. Within the US it doesn\u2019t seem to be happening at all. What\u2019s the prospect inside America for your campaign to actually get somewhere?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> When I wrote The Anxious Generation<\/em>, I thought: our Congress is broken, our politics is so easily corrupted by legal donations. I thought, okay, how do we solve this problem when we don\u2019t have any support from Congress? And so I wrote the book focusing on norms, on four norms to roll back the phone-based childhood: no smartphone before high school, no social media before 16, phone-free schools, and far more independence, free play and responsibility in the real world. Those were the four norms laid out in The Anxious Generation<\/em>, and I thought we\u2019ll have to do this without the government.<\/p>\n

But the two things I didn\u2019t fully realize are: one, we have 50 states, and those state governments mostly work. They jumped into action, the states have been amazing. More than 40 of our 50 states have, within a year and a half of the book coming out, passed legislation for phone-free schools. State governments have been amazingly active at trying to protect kids, and it\u2019s totally Right-Left. There is no red-blue difference. So, other than Congress \u2014 which is partly bought \u2014 we are getting a lot of action in the US.<\/p>\n

The other thing I didn\u2019t fully appreciate was just how active the rest of the world would be. Beginning with Australia, but as soon as Australia went into effect, more than a dozen countries, France being the first European country \u2014 and then Spain, Scandinavia, Greece. There\u2019s also a huge tech lash in the US now, especially around AI. Look, they fooled us once on social media, they took our kids. They\u2019ve escaped responsibility, they\u2019ve never been able to be sued until this year, they\u2019ve behaved abominably towards our kids in social media. They did the same thing with ed tech. They pushed it into the schools, and now it\u2019s damaging test scores. They tricked us on ed tech, and now people are pretty skeptical about AI in America. What I\u2019ve seen is that, in the developing world, they\u2019re more gung-ho about tech. In the West, we are much more negative, and, in America, especially about AI. So, I think two years ago I was thinking the way you just did, but I think the whole world has changed in the last two years.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> It\u2019s also about money, though, isn\u2019t it? Tech is a huge growth engine in the American economy. A lot of the lobbying, a lot of the diplomacy with the European Union is about American tech companies having access to these markets. And these kind of restrictions impact their business model.<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> How can you solve that? I mean, there is no American administration that is going to want to clip the wings of the best thing in its economy?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong>\u00a0 I don\u2019t think that\u2019s true. We were all techno-optimists in the Nineties. The reason that American law said that no one can sue these companies, you have complete freedom from liability, no one can sue you for what people post, which was interpreted broadly, is because we thought that way back then. \u201cThis is this new technology, it\u2019s amazing.\u201d When we all saw the internet the first time, I mean, it was incredible. And Congress basically said, \u201clet\u2019s not clip the wings, let it rip\u201d. That was 25, 30 years ago. Things are really different now; a lot of people are crying out for regulation. A lot of people feel oppressed by these companies. A lot of people see the damage.<\/p>\n

FS:<\/strong> Do you think the mood is changing against them?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> Oh, yeah. The mood is changing very fast against them, especially because of AI. The rollout of AI has been deeply threatening to people, as I think it should be. It\u2019s not just the job apocalypse, which is coming, it\u2019s many other threats.<\/p>\n

FS: <\/strong>So you think an American administration would take a hit on the economy in order to introduce these restrictions on tech?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> It\u2019s not clear to me that it\u2019s a hit to the economy. Okay, those growth stocks, they might grow a little slower, so there would be some financial implication, but it\u2019s not that it would slow down the economy. It can\u2019t be good for the American economy to make our children stupider and stupider and sicker and sicker every year \u2014 that just can\u2019t be a long-term growth strategy for the US. While China is able to say, \u201cour TikTok is healthy, kids don\u2019t get notifications\u201d,\u00a0 China is also able to regulate. It can\u2019t be a growth strategy to let tech do what it wants to our kids.<\/p>\n

Also, in terms of how we get out of it, the companies are in many ways more powerful than countries. I think the best analogy is the British East India Company, which basically was given a license to conquer, pillage, do what you want, start wars, kill people. That\u2019s essentially what our tech companies have been given, and the Trump administration has been pretty aggressive in threatening countries: \u201cif you do this, we\u2019re going to put tariffs on you.\u201d I don\u2019t think that\u2019s appropriate to do. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s historically been done to our friends, at least not to this degree, so I think whatever future administration, whether it\u2019s Republican or Democrat, I don\u2019t think they\u2019re going to be as aggressive in threatening countries who try to pass child-friendly legislation. Now that it\u2019s most of the developed world countries standing up at the same time, it\u2019s a different game.<\/p>\n

FS: <\/strong>Final question. You are talking to a somewhat conservatively-minded person. Imagine this person has been burnt over the last seven years. They went through the Covid era, they witnessed draconian curtailments to their liberty, all done using do-goody language about protecting public health. They saw a conspiracy between government and social media to censor what should have been perfectly legitimate political speech, and they are deeply skeptical of people using the word \u201cban\u201d in connection with something that sounds virtuous in terms of helping people. They might agree with you, they might have kids that they\u2019re anxious are on their phones too much, but they\u2019re done with people coming in saying \u201cwe need to help you by banning this or restricting your freedom\u201d \u2014 what is your message to them?<\/p>\n

JH:<\/strong> What I\u2019ve learned from thirty years of studying political psychology is that each side, the Right and the Left, the libertarians \u2014 each of them are wise to certain threats to society or the family, and in a well-functioning society, each one is voicing those concerns, and there\u2019s a mechanism for balancing them or taking everyone\u2019s concerns into account. So, conservatives and libertarians need to constantly be witnesses to the fact that whatever is proposed could be misused. You can\u2019t just trust the government to do what it says, they need to be the watchdogs.<\/p>\n

But I would also say: as conservatives, you are also the most sensitive to threats to the family. Even back in the Eighties and Nineties, it was conservatives who were saying that we can\u2019t just have these sexually explicit lyrics surrounding our kids, we can\u2019t just have porn everywhere. Conservatives are the canaries in the coal mine for the moral degradation of our children. Conservatives should keep speaking up for that, that we can\u2019t be raising our children in a toilet, we can\u2019t be having our government decide what anyone can say. Keep voicing those concerns, and that\u2019s how you end up with a really good policy in your country.<\/p>\n

This has to happen. The status quo is just completely unworkable. The climate that kids are being raised in is not just degrading, it\u2019s not even good for free-speech. Kids are afraid to speak honestly on social media, it makes them lie, it makes them present a false self. The status quo is horrible for everyone. It has to change, and it\u2019s going to change. The question is, are we going to do it well in ways that are privacy-preserving and that don\u2019t give governments the right to judge who can say what, or are we going to do it badly?<\/p>\n

I think the UK is really ground zero for this debate, because you do have a problem with government curtailing of speech, but you are also the founders of liberalism in the sense of individual liberty. So, I\u2019m really hopeful that it works out well in the UK, and we need the conservatives to be voicing their strong concerns, their right to be concerned. But I\u2019m confident, given what I\u2019m seeing, and given the broad public support that we have to deal with this problem. I\u2019m confident that we\u2019re going to get it right \u2014 maybe not in every country at first \u2014 but let\u2019s see how things go, and let\u2019s learn from each other. I think we can do this, and I think we have to do this.<\/p>\n

Read more AI and the false consciousness trap<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jonathan Haidt\u2019s The Anxious Generation must count as one of the most influential books of the decade. Within a year of its publication, countries across the Western world were moving to ban smartphones in school, and prevent access to porn and social media for under-16s.\u00a0 Read more The great German own goal But the politics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":436,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[140],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interview"],"yoast_head":"\nJonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban - \u0421ity Flow Journal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban - \u0421ity Flow Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jonathan Haidt\u2019s The Anxious Generation must count as one of the most influential books of the decade. Within a year of its publication, countries across the Western world were moving to ban smartphones in school, and prevent access to porn and social media for under-16s.\u00a0 Read more The great German own goal But the politics […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"\u0421ity Flow Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-06T04:13:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/eb5442f0ad6aa87f0eddf619a8d0abc4\"},\"headline\":\"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T04:13:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437\"},\"wordCount\":5736,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Interview\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437\",\"name\":\"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban - \u0421ity Flow Journal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T04:13:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/eb5442f0ad6aa87f0eddf619a8d0abc4\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1088},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?p=437#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"\u0421ity Flow Journal\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/eb5442f0ad6aa87f0eddf619a8d0abc4\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cityflowjournal.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban - \u0421ity Flow Journal","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban - \u0421ity Flow Journal","og_description":"Jonathan Haidt\u2019s The Anxious Generation must count as one of the most influential books of the decade. Within a year of its publication, countries across the Western world were moving to ban smartphones in school, and prevent access to porn and social media for under-16s.\u00a0 Read more The great German own goal But the politics […]","og_url":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437","og_site_name":"\u0421ity Flow Journal","article_published_time":"2026-07-06T04:13:09+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/#\/schema\/person\/eb5442f0ad6aa87f0eddf619a8d0abc4"},"headline":"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban","datePublished":"2026-07-06T04:13:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437"},"wordCount":5736,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp","articleSection":["Interview"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437","url":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437","name":"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban - \u0421ity Flow Journal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-06T04:13:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/#\/schema\/person\/eb5442f0ad6aa87f0eddf619a8d0abc4"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/b7bb53a89367e3df1d0909a17a17ea71.webp","width":1920,"height":1088},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?p=437#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jonathan Haidt: Why the Right should support the social media ban"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/","name":"\u0421ity Flow Journal","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/#\/schema\/person\/eb5442f0ad6aa87f0eddf619a8d0abc4","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/cityflowjournal.com"],"url":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/437\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cityflowjournal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}