 |
|
|
|||||
When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt published The Anxious Generation in March 2024, his core proposalthat children should be kept off social media until at least age 16, with tech companies bearing the burden of enforcementwas treated by many as aspirational, even quixotic. The tech industry dismissed it. Libertarian critics called it paternalistic overreach. Skeptics questioned the evidence base. That was then. In barely two years, Haidt’s “radical” idea has become something close to a global consensusa textbook example of what political scientists call the “Overton Windowone that’s shifted at extraordinary speed. The Overton Window describes the range of ideas that are considered politically acceptable at any given time, ranging from unthinkable to popular and eventually to policy. Ideas outside the windowno matter how sensibleget dismissed as too extreme, too impractical, or too politically risky to touch. But when conditions change, the window can move, sometimes gradually and sometimes with startling speed, pulling yesterday’s fringe idea into today’s mainstream. That is exactly what has happened with children and social media. Politicians everywhere are now racing to get on the right side of a window that has moved decisively. The Floodgates Have Opened Consider what has happened just since late 2025. Australia led the charge, enacting an outright ban on social media for children under 16 that took effect in December 2025, with monetary penalties falling squarely on the platformsnot on parents or kids. France has passed a bill banning social media for children under 15. Denmark secured cross-party support for a similar ban, expected to become law by mid-2026. Spain, Germany, Malaysia, Slovenia, Italy, and Greece are all moving in the same direction. In the United States, where bipartisan agreement on anything feels miraculous, the Kids Off Social Media Act has attracted co-sponsors from both partiesSen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) alongside Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) alongside Katie Britt (R-AL). Virginia enacted a law effective January 2026 limiting under-16 social media use to one hour per day unless parents opt in. Over 45 states have pending legislation. And in the U.K., a January 2026 government consultation is explicitly considering a social media ban for children, after the House of Lords defeated the government to insert an under-16 ban into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This is no longer a debate about whether to act. It’s a debate about the details. Why the Window Moved So Fast Several forces converged to make this shift possible. First, mounting evidence. Haidt marshaled data showing that since the early 2010sprecisely when smartphones and social media became ubiquitous among teensrates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide among young people have surged across the developed world. The patterns are strikingly consistent across countries and cultures. As Haidt puts it: We “over-protected children in the real world and under-protected them online.” Second, personal stories that broke through the noise. Australia’s ban originated partly from a mother’s letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about her 12-year-old daughter’s suicide following social media bullying. At the U.N. General Assembly in September 2025, a mother’s speech about her daughter’s “death by bullying, enabled by social media” won support from world leaders across continents. Data persuades policymakers; stories move publics. Third, the collective action problem became too painful to ignore. Haidt nailed this insight: Individual parents feel powerless against platforms engineered by billions of dollars of design expertise to maximize engagement. No single family can opt out without socially isolating their child. This is precisely why governments need to shift the responsibility to the platforms. When enforcement becomes the tech companies’ problemnot the parents’ problemthe collective action trap breaks. Fourth, early results from related interventions are encouraging. Arkansas’ phone-free-school pilot program showed a 51% drop in drug-related offenses and a 57% decline in verbal and physical aggression among students within the first year. Results like these give politicians the cover they need to act boldly. The Strategic Lesson For those of us who study how change happens, this is a master class. An idea that seemed politically impossible in early 2024 has become politically inevitable by early 2026. That’s the speed at which Overton Windows can move when lived experience, accumulating evidence, moral urgency, and a clear articulation of the problem all align. Note, too, where the burden of proof has shifted. Two years ago, advocates for restricting children’s social media access had to justify intervention. Today, it is the tech companies and their defenders who must explain why children should continue to have unrestricted access to platforms designed to be addictive. That reversalthe shift in who must justify whatis the surest signal that an Overton Window has decisively moved. It is further set against the backdrop of the first set of legal challenges to the platforms business models, arguing that their designers have deliberately designed their products to be harmful to maximize their profits. What Comes Next Haidt, a professor of ethical leadership at New York University, didn’t create this movement alonemillions of anxious parents, grieving families, and alarmed educators did. But he gave it a framework, a language, and a set of actionable proposals. And now, politicians everywhee are scrambling to catch up with what parents already knew in their bones: that we handed our children’s attention, self-worth, and mental health to companies that optimize for engagement, not well-beingand that better guardrails, uniformly enforced, are essential.
Category:
E-Commerce
For decades, weve been told that the smartest organizations are data-driven. The phrase carries moral weight. To be guided by data is to be serious, rational, modern. If youre not, youre seen as ideological or sentimental. In the workplace, quantification has become synonymous with credibility and competence. And yet, the more data we accumulate, the less certain we seem to be that we are making better decisions. Theres a paradox. Organizations are drowning in dashboards, KPIs, performance metrics, behavioral traces, biometric indicators, predictive scores, engagement rates, and AI-generated forecasts. We have more data than we know what to do with. We pretend that the mere presence of data guarantees clarity. It does not. Thats data hubristhe arrogant belief that because something can be measured, it can be mastered. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-169.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-11.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Laetitia@Work\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Women power the worlds productivity its time we talked more about it. Explore a woman-centered take on work, from hidden discrimination to cultural myths about aging and care. Dont miss the next issue subscribe to Laetitia@Work.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/laetitiaatwork.substack.com","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91472264,"imageMobileId":91472265,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} The Illusion of Objectivity In executive meetings, a slide filled with graphs and percentages signals authority. Numbers appear to silence dissent and create the impression of neutrality. But behind every dataset lies a series of human decisions: what to measure, how to measure it, what to ignore, and how to interpret it. Metrics are never neutral; they are constructed within particular frameworks, assumptions, and interests. Too often, data is used not to inform decisions but to justify them after the fact. It lends post-hoc legitimacy to strategies already chosen, wrapping subjective choices in the language of objectivity. Take creative industries, for example, where algorithms supposedly predict success. Netflix built part of its reputation on data sophistication, claiming to understand viewers better than traditional studios ever could. Yet insiders have described how metrics shift, interpretations vary, and executives selectively highlight numbers that support their preferred projects. The result can be content engineered to be watchable but forgettableoptimized for fragmented attention rather than lasting cultural impact. Also, the problem is that data reflects the past. It captures what has already worked, not what might resonate tomorrow. It struggles to grasp the emerging mood of a societythe intangible zeitgeist that makes a story, product, or idea feel timely. Focusing on backward-looking indicators institutionalizes mediocrity. When Data Confirms What We Already Know The same pattern appears in corporate HR, where the rise of people analytics promised revolutionary insight into engagement and performance. Sensors track badge swipes, algorithms map collaboration networks, and predictive models estimate attrition risk. After enormous investment, companies often discover that good managers matter, that employees dislike micromanagement, and that people leave when they feel undervalued. These findings are hardly revolutionary. Some of the most celebrated data-driven insights simply confirm what experienced people already suspected. There is a widening gap between the sophistication of measurement tools and the banality of many of the conclusions they generate. In open, messy environments, organizations often produce vast quantities of noise and mistake it for knowledge. Healthcare offers another revealing example. Radiology once seemed perfectly suited for AI transformation: millions of standardized images and clear diagnostic categories. Early systems performed impressively on routine cases. However, real-world practice quickly exposed limitations. Radiology reports are filled with cautious phrasescannot rule out, clinical correlation recommendedthe product of decades of medico-legal prudence. Algorithms struggle with this ambiguity and may flag excessive urgencies because they cannot distinguish legal caution from genuine clinical risk. More fundamentally, medicine is defined by exceptions. AI may handle 90% of common cases effectively, but it is the rare and atypical cases that truly test expertise. A seasoned radiologist can reason through an unprecedented situation; an algorithm remains confined to its training data. Abundant historical data does not eliminate the variability of reality. The Blind Spots of Overconfidence One of the most dangerous effects of data hubris is overconfidence. When decisions are backed by numbers, leaders may lose caution. Digital traces capture clicks and transactions but not informal conversations. Not everything meaningful leaves a digital record, and dashboards rarely display their own blind spots. We face what we don’t know we don’t know. In his work on uncertainty, Vaughn Tan distinguishes between riskwhere probabilities are calculableand deeper forms of not-knowing where probabilities themselves are unknown. Treating all uncertainty as if it were calculable risk is a category error. Mathematics cannot resolve questions about emerging values and unprecedented events. The COVID-19 crisis illustrated this confusion vividly. Some leaders relied heavily on models built from previous diseases, assuming that all unknowns were simply risk variables awaiting calculation. In reality, many were genuine uncertainties that required experimentation, humility, and adaptive learning. From Data Mastery to Uncertainty Literacy Data hubris can also extend into one’s personal life through the quantified self movement. Wearables measure sleep cycles, heart rate variability, step counts, and glucose levels, promising unprecedented self-knowledge. But more information does not always mean better well-being. In medicine, excessive testing increases the risk of false positives, detecting anomalies that may never cause harm but may trigger anxiety and invasive follow-ups. Constant self-tracking can fuel obsession. Instead of asking whether we feel rested or hungry, we defer to numerical indicators, thus ignoring more intuitive signals (feeling hungry, rested . . .). None of this means we should reject data. Of course not. Data is invaluable. But it must sit within a broader understanding of how knowledge is actually producedthrough field observations, expert judgment, and lived experience. Data demands interpretation. It requires humility nd open conversations. What is missing here? What assumptions shaped these metrics? Who decided what to measureand why? In genuinely uncertain environments, small, reversible experiments often outperform grand predictive models. Instead of pretending to know, organizations can probe, learn, and adapt. Intuitionfar from being irrationalrepresents compressed experience accumulated over time. Above all, leaders must remain humble in the face of unknown unknowns. The most sophisticated analytics cannot absolve decision-makers of responsibility. As sensors multiply and AI systems proliferate, the temptation to equate measurement with mastery will only intensify. Beware of data hubris. Knowing that we do not fully know is the foundation of sound judgment in a world that remains irreducibly complex. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-169.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-11.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Laetitia@Work\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Women power the worlds productivity its time we talked more about it. Explore a woman-centered take on work, from hidden discrimination to cultural myths about aging and care. Dont miss the next issue subscribe to Laetitia@Work.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/laetitiaatwork.substack.com","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91472264,"imageMobileId":91472265,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
A culture of fear makes it easy to cloud our judgment For thousands of years, walking and horseback riding were the fundamental modes of transport, and settlement patterns were a direct reflection of transport options. Compact, low-rise villages and cities made sense based on how far people could reasonably travel on foot or by horse. This was true all the way up until the late 1800s. Then came an invention that let people travel incredible distances in seconds, entirely reshaping cities with dense population clusters. The technology was a sturdy box designed to transport multiple people at once, but often carried just one. I’m talking, of course, about the elevator. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-desktop.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-mobile.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Urbanism Speakeasy\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/\u0022\u003Eurbanismspeakeasy.com.\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91453933,"imageMobileId":91453932,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} Elevators transformed city planning in remarkable ways, long before automobiles sprawled life horizontally. Before elevators, buildings stayed squat because stairs limited height. Walking up two or three flights isn’t terrible. Carrying a briefcase up 10 flights of steep, dark stairs to the office is, pardon the pun, another story. It didnt take long for skylines to change following the invention of the elevator. Each early elevator had its own operator who mastered the timing and touch of hand-crank controls. These operators wore their Sunday best as a psychological reminder: “We will safely get you to your destination.” Brilliant minds innovated on the elevator, adding safety technology like automatic brakes, but it was the human touch that eased public nerves. It’s hard now to imagine feeling completely helpless in an elevator, but such was life in the early 20th century. Zero chance ordinary people like you and me were going to attempt to operate an elevator without rigorous training first. Full automation That changed dramatically with the September 1945 New York City elevator operators’ strike. Around 15,000 operators, doormen, porters, and maintenance workers walked off, halting service in over 2,000 buildings. About 1.5 million people avoided elevators, opting for stairs or staying home rather than risk operating the cars themselves. But self-service features like electric power, emergency phones, and push buttons were already spreading, so the strike helped open the doors to full automation. Self-driving elevators! You can practically hear the traveling public gasp. Walk into a box, let the doors close and lock you in, and trust that this thing would take you quicklybut not too quicklythe proper distance. Otis gets credit for installing the first fully automated elevator in 1950 in Dallas. But the transition took time, both for technology to improve and for a skeptical population to trust it. Operators were still employed in some cities 30 years later. Today, you can casually scan your hotel room key in a lobby that summons a box to whisk you to your precise destination without even pressing buttons inside. A public health crisis You and I will never have the time, energy, or need to read the thousands of opinion pieces about the dangers of autonomous technology as it relates to cars. And as robotaxis accelerate deployments in 2026, there will be no shortage of fear-based stories. There’s no scenario, with or without technology, that results in a danger-free life. The challenge for us is to identify and analyze trade-offs without being clouded by ideology or thwarted by lazy straw man arguments. I’m not a technology expert, so I don’t get too deep on what a particular shiny new object can or can’t do. I am a traffic safety expert, though, and I can tell you motor vehicle deaths remain a public health crisis. Every day, more than 100 people are killed in traffic crashes, and thousands more experience life-altering injuries. That’s the track record of human drivers for decades. Software can save lives by preventing people from driving too fast, running red lights, passing school buses, tailgating in bad weather, or committing other dangerous antisocial acts. If only 50 people are killed each day because of autonomous technology, isnt that worth celebrating? What if the technology could bring traffic fatalities down to nearly zero? It’s natural to be scared by emerging tech. Early elevator riders felt helpless stepping into a closing box with no operator to guide them. But people adapted because the status quo (stairs limiting how we could build and live) was worse, and incremental safety features built confidence over time. There are absolutely valid concerns about autonomous vehicles, like software hacking, or failure to recognize a one-way street. But remember that humans are not the safest operators, that our current state of mobility is a public health crisis killing tens of thousands every year. Autonomous vehicles programmed to operate safely are part of the quest to design for human flourishing. If we’ve entrusted machines to carry us sky-high without hesitation, we can approach transportation systems the same way: cautiously optimistic, evidence-driven, and open to progress that saves lives. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-desktop.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/speakeasy-mobile.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Urbanism Speakeasy\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/\u0022\u003Eurbanismspeakeasy.com.\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91453933,"imageMobileId":91453932,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||