social media

‘The Tech Exit’ Helps Families Ditch Addictive Tech — For Good.

Social media, screens and smartphones, oh my — parents everywhere are struggling to keep their kids safe in an overwhelming technological age.

Clare Morell, a tech policy expert and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, throws frazzled families a lifeline in her new book, Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones.

In Tech Exit, Morell encourages parents to challenge the idea that addictive technologies are an unavoidable part of modern childhood.

She and hundreds of other “Tech Exit” families are successfully raising their children without smartphones, social media, tablets or video games. The book lays out detailed, step-by-step instructions for families to join their number.

Tech Exit’s proposal might seem drastic — especially for families with older children already addicted to screens. Morell uses her own research and interviews with “Tech Exit” families to show leaving tech behind is not only possible, but logical.

She starts by debunking four myths about screen-based technology.

Myth 1: Screen-based technology is an inevitable part of childhood.

Morell helps create policies protecting children from dangerous technology. She gave birth to her own children as data began showing the catastrophic effects smartphone and social media use wreak on child development and mental health.

The new mom didn’t want her kids to suffer the same effects — but the advice she found in parenting books didn’t seem equal to the problems at hand.

“I saw a major disconnect,” she writes in Tech Exit. “I’d move from horrifying accounts of kids falling into sextortion schemes to advice like ‘set time limits’ [and] ‘turn on privacy settings on their accounts.’”

These aren’t bad strategies, Morell explains, but they also assume that children need access to screen-based technology. That’s not true. Her own family is proof that a “Tech Exit” is sustainable and beneficial.

Myth 2: Screen-based tech can be used in moderation.

We like to conceive of screens like sugar — something that can be enjoyed in moderation.

But screens aren’t like sugar. “For the developing brains of children and teens,” Morell writes, “they are more like fentanyl.”

As the Daily Citizen has previously reported, social networking apps, websites and devices — anything with a messaging or networking feature — triggers the release of dopamine, the brain’s reward chemical.

Crucially, dopamine trains the brain to “want” something but never produces feelings of satiety. Once kids get a taste of tech, they’ll always want more.

When parents bring screen-based tech into the house, they put themselves squarely between “a drug-dispensing machine and an underdeveloped brain,” as one of Morell’s interviewees puts it, and invite daily battles over its use.

“It’s an untenable, exhausting situation,” Morell writes.

Myth 3: The harms of screen-based tech can be fixed with screen-time limits.

Tech companies frequently imply parents can protect kids from screen-based technology by stopping them from spending too much time on their devices. That’s why, in part, screen-time limits are “the most prominent form of parental control [over kids’ devices],” according to Morell.

But addictive technology can negatively affect kids regardless of the amount of time they use them.

The dopamine released in just a couple of minutes of screen time can cause kids to desire tech for hours after it’s been put away. Over time, these intense chemical highs will make other, everyday pleasures seem boring.

The negative social effects of technology burden all kids and teens alike, regardless of their screen use. Morell writes:

The teen mental health crisis today is due not only to negative effects of digital technologies for individuals but also to the group social dynamic that smartphones and social media have created.

Smartphones, for example, change the way kids and teens create and maintain friendships. Every kid must play by these new social rules — even if they don’t use screen-based technology.

Myth 4: Parents can protect their children from danger using parental controls.

Device and app manufacturers have financial incentives to show children inappropriate content. Thus, parental controls are unintuitive, filled with bugs and intentionally easy to manipulate.

But that’s not how they’re sold to parents. Tech companies keep young customers by convincing parents they can sufficiently protect their kids from predators, scams and inappropriate content online.

It’s almost always an exercise in frustration.

Given these intractable problems, Morell uses a startling metaphor to illustrate parental controls’ effectiveness in the digital world:

We don’t take our children to bars and strip clubs and blindfold them or have them wear earplugs. That would be absurd. We just don’t let them go to those places.

Morell’s cost-benefit analysis suggests the benefits of raising children in largely tech-free households far outweigh the consequences. Tech Exit endeavors to create a clear, sustainable path for families to do just that.

Her approach centers around FEAST — an acronym for five common principles all “Tech Exit” families she interviewed follow:

  • Find Other Families: They connect with other “Tech Exit” families.
  • Explain, Educate, Exemplify: They get their kids on board by explaining why they are getting rid of screens, educating them on the dangers of the digital world and exemplifying good digital habits.
  • Adopt Alternatives: They look for creative alternatives to smartphones and other technologies.
  • Set Up Digital Accountability and Family Screen Rules: They create rules and boundaries governing technology in the home.
  • Trade Screens for Real-Life Responsibilities: They replace time spent on screens with independent play and responsibilities.

Morell offers a treasure trove of practical, honest advice and resources to help families adopt these principles in their own lives — even when it seems impossible.

Curious about becoming a “Tech Exit” family? You can find The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones here.

Additional Articles and Resources

Video: Seven-Year-Old’s Confidence Soars After Ordering Chick-Fil-A By Himself

Social Psychologist Finds Smartphones and Social Media Harm Kids in These Four Ways

Four Ways to Protect Your Kids from Bad Tech, From Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt

Parent-Run Groups Help Stop Childhood Smartphone Use

The Harmful Effects of Screen-Filled Culture on Kids

‘Big Tech’ Device Designs Dangerous for Kids, Research Finds

Pornography Age Verification Laws: What They Are and Which States Have Them

National Center on Sexual Exploitation Targets Law Allowing Tech Companies to Profit from Online Sex Abuse

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) has launched a campaign to reform an outdated law effectively allowing tech companies to aid, abet and profit off online sex abuse.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996 to protect children from online exploitation. It included Section 230, a carveout preventing “interactive computer services” from liability for content users posted online.

Section 230 was a direct response to a New York Supreme Court case from 1995 which found Prodigy Services, a web company that hosted online discussion forums, liable for a user’s defamatory content because it had tried to moderate the objectionable posts.

The ruling made tech companies reluctant to censor even the most offensive content. Section 230, lawmakers reasoned, gave moderators freedom to remove indecent posts.

What Went Wrong

CDA would have made it illegal to “knowingly send obscene or indecent messages … as determined by contemporary community standards, to someone under 18.”

In 1997, the Supreme Court found these protections violated the First Amendment. The ruling stripped CDA of its prohibitions against targeting children but left Section 230 intact.

Over the next two and a half decades, tech companies grew to unprecedented size and power. Courts, meanwhile, interpreted Section 230 to excuse websites, browsers and social media sites of all responsibility regarding the content and activity on their platforms.

The difference between lawmaker’s intentions for Section 230 and its contemporary use is stark. NCOSE writes:

[Section 230] of CDA was originally designed to help protect children online in the early days of the internet.
However, this law — which is over 25  years old — has instead become a shield for Big Tech corporations, allowing them to evade accountability even as their platforms are blatantly used to facilitate egregious acts like sex trafficking, child sexual abuse and image-based sexual abuse.
Twelve Survivors

Every year, NCOSE releases a list of “12 mainstream entities facilitating, enabling and even profiting from sexual abuse.” Dirty Dozen alumni include Twitter (now X), Facebook, Google, Instagram, Amazon, HBO, Netflix, Reddit and even the U.S. Department of Defense.

This year, instead of identifying twelve exploitative companies, NCOSE is “highlighting 12 survivors who were denied justice in the courts because of Section 230.”

“These survivors were silenced,” NCOSE writes, “and the companies that enabled their abuse were given immunity.”

X Refuses to Remove Sexually Explicit Photos of a Minor

One of the 12 stories NCOSE highlights is that of a 13-year-old John Doe. A sextortionist posing as a 16-year-old girl convinced John and his friend engage in a romantic exchange of explicit images. The predator attempted to blackmail John and, when John blocked them, spread the pictures and videos across X. They eventually reached parents and peers at John’s school.

John and his mom contacted X to get the photos taken down. They sent pictures of John’s ID to prove he was a minor. X responded:

We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.

NCOSE is one of three groups representing John and his friend in court against X. They argue the social media juggernaut “knowingly possessed child sexual abuse material and knowingly benefitted from sex trafficking.”

A federal district court initially dismissed the case under Section 230.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case in February. NCOSE recounts X’s argument:

X’s attorney himself acknowledged that the platform did not remove the [child sexual abuse] content, even after reviewing [John’s] report.
He continued to maintain that X should be immune anyway, stating that holding tech companies accountable for illegal third-party content being uploaded to the site is “antithetical” to what Congress intended with Section 230.

It continues:

The mere fact that Twitter can admit to partaking in a despicable crime and maintain that they should still be protected shows that Section 230 urgently needs to be reformed.
Why Nothing Has Changed

Lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle support reforming — or repealing — Section 230. Democrat and Republican senators blasted blanket immunity for big tech in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue in February.

Congress has gathered near-unanimous support for at least six child internet safety bills in recent years. Only two — the REPORT Act and the Take It Down Act — have passed.

Even the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recommended revising Section 230, writing in a 2020 report,

The expansive statutory interpretation [of Section 230], combined with technological developments, has reduced the incentives of online platforms to address illicit activity on their services and, at the same time, left them free to moderate lawful content without transparency and accountability.

The DOJ specifically noted that platforms had used Section 230 to get immunity “even when they knew their services were being used for criminal activity” and to “evade laws and regulations applicable to brick-and-mortar competitors.”

If changing Section 230 is such a popular issue, why has nothing changed?

According to Senator Dick Durbin: money.

When Congress tried to curtail tech companies’ immunity or institute child internet safety protections, “Big Tech opened up a $61.5 million dollar lobbying war chest to make sure [those] bills never became law,” Senator Durbin told the committee in February,

Next Steps

NCOSE asks citizens to encourage Congress to remove Section 230’s immunity protections for tech companies. The snowballing reckoning around social media’s effect on children, and this year’s legislative and congressional activity around Section 230, could indicate fertile ground for change.

The Daily Citizen will continue reporting on Section 230 and efforts to hold tech companies accountable.

Additional Articles and Resources

First Lady Melania Trump Celebrates House’s Passage of Take It Down Act

Proposed SCREEN Act Could Protect Kids from Porn

Kid’s Online Safety Act — What It Is and Why It’s a Big Deal

TikTok Dangerous for Minors — Leaked Docs Show Company Refuses to Protect Kids

Instagram’s Sextortion Safety Measures — Too Little, Too Late?

Zuckerberg Implicated in Meta’s Failures to Protect Children

Teen Boys Fall Prey to Financial Sextortion — Here’s What Parents Can Do

Instagram Content Restrictions Don’t Work, Tests Show

Horrifying Instagram Investigation Indicts Modern Parenting

REPORT Act Becomes Law

Posting Easter Sunday  — A Young Person’s Reflection on Life Lived Through Social Media

Social media trains us to see life through a camera’s lens. Our experiences start to feel unimportant, even intangible, unless we document them online.

I noticed this about myself almost a year after I quit social media, when I went skydiving. Five seconds of freefall followed by twenty minutes of parachuting down from dizzying heights, it remains the most thrilling experience of my life.

I caught myself brainstorming Instagram posts to mark the occasion within minutes of hitting the ground. In that moment, the joy I felt skydiving didn’t matter unless I could tell everyone else I had done it.

I was saddened last weekend to see so many believers falling into the same trap.

On Good Friday and Easter Sunday, I watched dozens (yes, dozens) of people whip out their phones to film worship. I watched them take meticulous photos of the church’s “Welcome to Easter Sunday” banner, each with a slightly different angle and zoom. I watched them line up to take pictures against a plain white background with black block letters reading, “Jesus.”

I know these kinds of pictures well. They are posted to Instagram or Snapchat stories with little to no context.

Their implied message?

“Just in case you forgot, I’m a Christian.”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with proclaiming your faith on social media. Nor is it unusual for people to use clothing or other external signals to identify themselves as part of a social group.

But I think this is a different phenomenon, one driven by the constant “connection” imposed by social networks. It’s not about letting people know you are faithful, it’s about feeling as though you are not faithful unless you post something online.

That, my friends, is not biblical.

Jesus and his disciples were never particularly concerned with what other people thought of them. Jesus frequently went out of his way to subvert religious norms that did not glorify God.

In Matthew 23:1-6, Jesus castigates the Pharisees:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice … They do all their deeds to be seen by others (ESV).

In verses 27 and 28, He continues:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

I’m not suggesting that everyone who posted about Easter is a hypocrite — far from it. These verses illustrate how problematic it can be to curate our lives for others’ consumption and approval.

And that’s social media’s business model.

Jesus does not command us to demonstrate our faith by wearing certain clothes or posting certain pictures. The mark of our salvation, Galatians 5 tells us, is the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Paul concludes the chapter:

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

Accordingly, I encourage fellow believers to take stock of themselves and their families — how much control does the camera lens exercise over your life? Do you feel odd, even wrong, for letting a Christian holiday past without letting followers know you celebrate?

These could be signs that your relationship with social media needs to change. I’ve been there, and I’m grateful to say recovery is possible. There’s freedom in enjoying your life as you live it, instead of when you post about it.

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Galatians 5:13)

New York Prepares to Restrict School Smartphone Use

New York could pass a statewide, “bell-to-bell” ban on smartphone use in schools within the month, multiple outlets report.

The policy, introduced by Governor Kathy Hochul in January, is one of many rolled in to the state’s 2026 budget proposal. It would allocate some $13 million dollars for school districts to purchase tools restricting school smartphones use.

Polling suggests most New York voters support all-day restrictions on smartphones in schools, but the specifics have proven difficult to iron out. Mayor Eric Adams stopped pursuing cellphone restrictions in New York City schools less than a year ago after encountering logistical issues.

Hochul’s statewide policy addresses three common objections to Adams’ failed district-wide restrictions:

  • It provides funding for schools to purchase equipment, like these lockable pouches.
  • It requires schools to provide at least one way for students and parents to communicate in an emergency.
  • It includes exceptions for students with learning disabilities and those who use their phones as translators.

But it’s not yet clear how much freedom districts would have to establish their own cellphone restrictions.

Some New York officials argue districts should be able to decide whether students can use smartphones during passing periods, lunch or other non-instructional times.

Hochul, on the other hand, supports what she calls a “bell-to-bell ban” — no cellphone use on school property during school hours.

“No smartphones, no earbuds, no cellphones,” Hochul told Telemundo 47 in March. “Here’s why: The mental health of our children, especially in middle school and high school is really declining.”

While introducing the policy, Hochul argued:

[Kids aren’t] developing the skills [they] need because they are distracted with the cell phones. Our teachers [are] trying to teach algebra and geography, and they’re competing with viral dances, and messages from their friends, and sometimes threats [and] bullying.

There’s no question that smartphone and social media use negatively affect adolescent’s development, mental health and academic achievement.

A 2023 study from Common Sense Media found 97% of teens use their cellphones during school hours, primarily to play video games, browse social media and watch porn.

Students that manage to put their phones down are lured back in with push notifications. The average American teen receives between 192 and 237 every day — about eleven every waking hour. This constant stimuli is so distracting, one study found, that the mere presence of a smartphone in the classroom, even tucked away in a backpack, decreases students’ academic performance.

Once students become distracted by their phone, a 2017 study from the Association of Consumer Research found it can take up to 20 minutes to recover their focus.

Constant distraction, or attention fragmentation, prevents adolescents from developing the parts of their brains responsible for self-control, decision-making and critical thinking, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes in his book The Anxious Generation.

Smartphones can also hamper adolescents’ social development. A 2023 surgeon general’s advisory on social media found excessive screentime hampers the development of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, the parts of the brain controlling “emotional learning, behavior impulse control, emotional regulation and ability to moderate social behavior.”

When Orange County school district in Florida instituted a total cell phone ban in November 2023, teachers and administrators saw improvement in kids’ focus and behavior. One teacher told The New York Times that students seemed “more talkative and collaborative.” Others found students made more eye contact and seemed more engaged. A principal claimed bullying decreased because students could no longer film embarrassing or harmful videos of their classmates to post on social media.

The surgeon general’s advisory cites studies supporting Orange County teachers’ experiences. A small study of college-aged kids found the severity of subjects’ depression lessened when they reduced their social media use to just thirty minutes a day.

Another small study found young adults and adults who abstained from social media for four weeks reported higher levels of subjective wellbeing, like happiness and life satisfaction. The improvements were equivalent to between 25% and 40% of benefits from other mental health interventions like therapy.

New York legislators are still finalizing the city’s 2026 budget — more than two weeks after the April 1 deadline. But outlets like Politico report the school cellphone policy isn’t causing the delay.

If the policy makes it into the state’s finalized budget, as expected, it will become the tenth state to restrict or ban school cellphone use at the state level, joining Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Louisiana and South Carolina.

To learn more about how you can protect your kids from the harmful effects of social media and excessive screentime, check out the articles linked below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Parent-Run Groups Help Stop Childhood Smartphone Use

Four Ways to Protect Your Kids from Bad Tech, from Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt

New York City Passes on School Cellphone Ban — For Now

Surgeon General Recommends Warning on Social Media Platforms

Social Psychologist Finds Smartphones and Social Media Harm Kids in These Four Ways

The Harmful Effects of Screen-Filled Culture on Kids

Survey Finds Teens Use Social Media More Than Four Hours Per Day — Here’s What Parents Can Do

Florida School District Bans Cellphones, Gets Results

‘Big Tech’ Device Designs Dangerous for Kids, Research Finds

Plugged in Parent’s Guide to Today’s Technology

Do Your Kids Have Healthy Phone Habits

Video: Seven-Year-Old’s Confidence Soars After Ordering Chick-Fil-A By Himself

A heartwarming video of a mom sending her seven-year-old into a restaurant to order by himself shows kids can still learn independence and responsibility in a technological age.

The short clip, circulated by conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, begins with an unnamed mother watching her small son walk into a Chick-Fil-A alone, cash clutched in his fist.

“I just finished the Anxious Generation,” she told the camera, referencing social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book exploring the effects of smartphones and social media on childhood.

“At the end, they challenge you to let your kid do something age-appropriate on their own [to build their] confidence,” she continued. “So, all of my kids came up with an idea that they wanted to do that they could do alone.”

Seven-year-old Wells decided he wanted to order Chick-Fil-A — so off to Chick-Fil-A they went.

In the Anxious Generation, Haidt argues smartphones and social media deprive children of the face-to-face, unsupervised group play they need to develop social skills and resilience. He presents research showing screens ruin the sleep kids need to learn and grow, eviscerate their attention spans and prime them for addiction.

Haidt quotes Anna Lembke, an addiction researcher at Stanford University:

The smartphone is the modern-day hypodermic needle, delivering digital dopamine 24/7 for a wired generation.

To mitigate these dangers, Haidt recommends parents allow kids to complete more tasks independently. He knows this is hard ask — not necessarily because the child is incapable, but because it requires the parent to relinquish control.

Wells’ mom felt that anxiety first-hand.

“The worst part is I can’t watch,” she told the camera, chagrined. “Even if the blinds weren’t shut, I could just peek and see, ‘Okay, he’s okay. He’s next and line. He’s got this.’”

“[But] no,” she flashes a disappointed smile. “No phone. No way to communicate with me. I can’t see if he’s in trouble.”

Despite her discomfort, Wells’ mom seems to recognize his success hinges on completing the task by himself, with no parental safety net.

Her self-control paid off. Wells soon emerged from the store with more Chick-Fil-A than he could carry.

“I want to do that again,” he told his elated mom with a big smile, handing her the drink he chose to upsize.

“Really?” she asked.

“Yeah, that is so fun.”

When his mom asked if the experience boosted his confidence, Wells replied with an emphatic yes.

Yeah, for sure. Like, my legs are still shivering. But yeah, that was so fun.

This video encapsulates so much more than a cute moment between mother and son. It proves parents can overcome anxiety for their kids’ benefit. It illustrates kids’ ability to do hard, uncomfortable things — and the joy they feel conquering them.

Most importantly, it shows that screens and social media don’t render parents powerless. It’s more than possible to raise resilient, independent kids in the technological age with love, time, courage and some elbow grease.

To learn more about the Anxious Generation and Haidt’s recommendations for parents, click on the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Social Psychologist Finds Smartphones and Social Media Harm Kids in These Four Ways

Four Ways to Protect Your Kids from Bad Tech, From Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt

Parent-Run Groups Help Stop Childhood Smartphone Use

The Harmful Effects of Screen-Filled Culture on Kids

‘Big Tech’ Device Designs Dangerous for Kids, Research Finds

Pornography Age Verification Laws: What They Are and Which States Have Them