Jonathan Haidt Debates Robby Soave on Social Media
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.พ. 2022
- Are platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram harming Americans in ways that government regulation could help correct?
------------------
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: th-cam.com/users/ReasonTV?sub_...
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
On Thursday, February 17, Jonathan Haidt and Robby Soave had an Oxford-style debate on the role of government regarding social media before a capacity crowd at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan. It was hosted by the Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein served as moderator.
Haidt, professor of ethical leadership at New York University and co-founder of Heterodox Academy, defended the debate resolution, "The federal government should increase its efforts to reduce the harms caused by social media."
Soave, who took the negative, is a senior editor at Reason and author of the recently published Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn't Fear Facebook and the Future. He argued that widespread criticisms of social media stem from our innate-and misguided-distrust of new technology. Soave also contended that, for all its flaws, social media confers huge net benefits, and that the application of "government force" is likely to do far more harm than good.
Haidt, author of a recent article in The Atlantic on social media's harm to mental health, pointed out that while the platforms were not initially designed for people under 18, those individuals have arguably been its victims. Haidt likened the platforms to sugar-best taken in moderation.
Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Additional graphics by Lex Villena. Event photography by Brett Raney.
I think this is the first time I've gone into a debate knowing and respecting both debaters.
Make that three. Robby and reason of course because I like many on here I like, and support because I'm a libertarian. But I came across Jonathan Haidt a while and I extremely respect his opinion and the work he's done. I also think they both did a great job.
You can thank ReasonTV for that. They're the bomb.
Same
yeah seriously, i watch Robbie a lot but i read everything by Jonathan.
"Abolish copyright and patent?" from Reason is also pretty good
As a 20 year old girl, who since she was 13 years old was thrown from the world of playing hide and seek, to a world of crying to my mom cause my facebook picture got 30 likes and my friends’ got 130, I’ve never in my life felt more understood by any “grownup” more than Jonathan Haidth. It’s so hard to find someone who speaks up on this issue, since the people with the most power are all millennials who even though they try, they do not relate at all, and all of us gen z are affected by this which makes it hard to help each other (it’s all we know and we’re all suffering). I’ve been struggling with depression on and off (but mostly on hahah) ever since i got into the social media space. Imagine a 13 year old addicted to cocaine, well it’s the same for us but with social media. You get a high when you post a picture, which makes you forget to live for yourself. When before I would think “Yay we’re going on holiday Im gonna have so much fun!” now i think “Okay let’s plan out my instagram pictures”.
I’m going on and on, but what I wanted to say was that Johnatan has really understood everything i’ve felt these past years, and so far he’s the only one who does.
I hope we save this generation and the upcoming generations by taking action fast, cause if we let this slide, the world is going to get more and more depressing within the next years, people (girls) won’t be able to function properly and as mothers their kids will suffer and so on.
Yea it's damaging to us all but I do believe it's even worse on girls and women. Before social media friendships were better, relationships were better, and families were tighter. This has been a deliberate diabolical attack on the structure of our society. Hopefully people wise up and start getting rid of it. I even notice on utube that anytime you make any comment someone has to post something negative about your comment. Honestly alot of times I believe they're generated bots used by utube to keep you interacting with the platform and that's evil as well. Technology could just be beneficial but it's also being used as a weapon
You do realise that social media was a thing when some Millenials were 13. It was called MySpace and the FB emerged about 2 years later. Teen life and social media is not unique to Gen Z. Just good for thought.
@@missylks1239 I have no idea how it must have been living as a kid back then, but as far as I've heard, MySpace wasn't even slightly similar to today's Social Media. Throughout the years, the apps are being designed to be more and more addictive, the content people are posting is also becoming different, what once were platforms where you would post pictures of you doing something for your friends and family to see, turned into faking your whole reality (how you look like, what your life is like, what you feel like, etc). Beauty standards have also changed enormously. It seems as if every girl is a model (ever since we started posting pictures and getting likes on them, of course everyone is going to be concerned with how they look). I mean 90% of the girls I know aren't happy with how they look because the standards for beauty have sky rocketed, with most of them unrealistic. Scrolling through social media and comparing yourself to 100 models a day with glossy hair, bright white teeth and tiny waists really makes you take off your attention from what you have, to what you lack. I believe this amount of focus on looks has driven people in my generation to not even care about the other aspects that makes them interesting, like having a distinguishable magnetic personality, skills, hobbies. As far as I've observed, as the standards for appearance have increased, the standards for personality have decreased. People have lost their character and what makes them unique, have became more self deprecating & more self hating. I could go on and on about how social media has affected me and the people I see around me, everything is just perfect, fast and fake.
@@teodora2376 And that’s why I’ve never liked or understood why people like Instagram so much. It’s just a picture. No one reads the captions. As things shifted toward Instagram, things definitely became more “visual”. Instagram came out either my Senior year or in college and I still don’t have one because I never understood the appeal.
Well said. Thank you for your contribution to the conversation.
i'm sorry to imagine that Robbin, within the last 5 years, maybe hasn't set foot into a class full of teenagers while trying to teach them something usefull; it's getting increasingly harder over the last years. All what Haidt said within the first 10 minutes of his speach is drastically accurate. Teenagers are starting to present the same patologies as what some kinds of addiction cause to people, due to the constant superstimulus they find on the internet and the easy and fast reward they get with it (in fact, my concern would be more against that than with social media alone). Adults pay for it too, but we got our minds pretty much grown when it stroke us, not like nowadays generations who'll earn this influence deeply embeded into their mindset as they grow.
I'm not supporting any government regulation, but highlighting how spread is the dislike we got for our children to experience with social media and smartphones before a reasonable age, and how little we're doing about it
Thank you Marc, fully agree. We are facing a cultural phenomenon that runs counter to much of what we are wanting our children to learn in terms of deep focus, empathy, rational argument . . .
@@mikkelhoejen from the people. If we're going to die because of our own stupidity, so be it. Making the govt to intervent will make societies stupid untill a point where they'll collapse upon themselves anyway. Have you ever heard "anything you do for someone, if it could be done by himself, you're not helping him but rather making him dependant and useless". Ok, now apply that to a society. That's how i see it.
Parents should make the move here because their child don't know what's it about.
@@cthshenry I think Haidt here has conflated the means of the problem (social media delivery systems/platforms) with the cause of the problem. He then compounds his error by laying responsibility on these means for various harms to young people, particularly females. His analogy of social media to leaden pipes is a poor one: the latter caused direct physical harm while the former do not. The use of the means may in many cases be the cause of the problem (for example, excessive use), but not the means themselves, which are largely neutral. Also, the evidence of greater harm to young females than to young males is a big clue: it is not likely the means, the social media themselves, but the characteristics and behavior of particular users and cohorts which put some at greater risk than others.
@@damianop100 Thank you for this thoughtful response. I agree that it would be wrong to lay the entirety of the blame on the means. But there is an increasing raft of research which suggests that our ability to focus is dwindling (see Johan Hari 'Stolen Focus') and that the way we relate to each other is fundamentally changing. It reminds me of McCluhan's 'the medium is the message', in which case the overuse of the medium literally shapes our thinking and our brains. The success of social media is predicated on its ability to offer endless distraction and entertainment, the algorithm traps users in an echo chamber of like-minded content, denying them a diversity of views and the immediacy and emotive nature of posting works against careful thought and healthy disagreement based on rational argument. Working as an English teacher, I fully understand the reasoning behind our demands that phones be switched off and kept in school bags, but sometimes it seems like we are fighting a losing battle in trying to get students to read long form fiction, debate rationally, consider other world views and listen carefully (all of which are skills which are ultimately healthy for the long term well being of our students).
@@damianop100
Of these two positions Robby Soave has the more realistic approach. It's hard to not sympathize with Haidts point but I think he is too narrow-minded when addressing this. I think it's a bit naive to have a view that the human mind can be rationally "saved" and at the same time I think it's irresponsible not to try to do so.
Essentially a battle that needs to be fought but can't be won.
One major problem is when they colluded to stamp out Parlor, probably illegally.
Collusion is not a law passed by congress. Still within the constitution. Please read it.
Collusion is illegal when used in an illegal endeavor. Seeking to protect a market monopoly or to prevent competition is against antitrust law. So the original poster was correct and in a way you were also.
Haidt has so many great podcasts discussing his research and opinions.
The short answer is that the government needs to enforce the laws it already has in place. "Platforms" like Facebook, TH-cam, Twitter, etc., have legal protections as "Platforms" that "Publishers" do not have. The condition on having those legal protections is that "Platforms" cannot remove content that is not in violation of the law, such as copyright violations, distribution of pornography to minors, etc.. The problem is that the government has not intervened when "Platforms" violated those conditions and began to act as "Publishers" both creating their own content and removing content they did not approve of that broke no laws. Let us first have the government enforce the laws they have created, and then evaluate if there needs to be any other action done through the legal process of Congress either creating new laws, or removing existing laws that fall under the preview of the Constitution.
This concept is what should be shouted from the rooftops. Social media companies are hiding behind the protection offered to places that provide a "public square" for conversation. But they have 'guards' so to speak to keep out the behavior they don't like that is not a public square, that is a private entity. Let the companies be held responsible for censoring opinions that they don't like.
I don't agree with Haidts position, but he hands down won this debate. And of course he's right that social media is causing a lot of destruction, I just don't see how govt could help. I think that Rob focused too much on downplaying the issue instead of framing why govt is incapable of fixing it, compared to communities and parents who are ultimately responsible for their children.
I concur. Robby did his best, but he was up there with Dr. Jonathan freaking Haidt.
I agree that Robby's focus should have been on defining what social media is, vs what it is not, and how the government left to its own devices makes things worse for everyone.
Agreed
yep
Well, did you really understand what his position was then? From reading the comments here, I'm not sure many people did. For starters - the issue primarily effects minors, and as we all should know, we restrict minors from engaging in several activities that are legal for adults because we know scientifically that their prefrontal cortex is under developed. They are human beings naturally at a disadvantage due to a simple issue of biology. In any case, restriction is not censorship - it's regulation, which brings me to the second avenue explored by Dr. Haidt - There are regulatory things we can do with the technology that doesn't impinge on anyones right to free speech. For instance, removing the "like" and "repost/share" buttons in social media would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for there to be these large internet mobs coming for people. If you have a hard time justifying this then consider this - The FDA regulates additives, storage and distribution of food but it does not regulate if you pick a pizza for dinner or a kale salad, even though one of those is obviously healthier. This is a similar process - we know that certain aspects of social media are more deleterious than others, so we can simply regulate those factors while still allowing people to decide what they talk about and with whom.
I know a lot of people are basically anarchists and are 100% against governments involvement in anything is a prima facie principal, but that's a non-starter for me and most likely the majority of the people in the country. I may agree on individual points of debate, such as something is regulated that shouldn't be, or current regulations are too onerous and limit trade or competition, or that they could be streamlined and reduced. Basically, anything logical in a case by case basis, but you're never going to convince the vast majority of the population that there shouldn't be things like banning poison from food. This is the same sort of intellectual construct - the idea is simply to ban the "poison" from social media, while leaving everything else in place.
I personally having been an EMT and witnessing what happens to the human body(or can happen) from car accidents- would still rather see a human life lost while actually experiencing life as opposed to a life of mindless scrolling inside the four corners of your new jail cell..
To say that phones and social media aren't addictive is just intellectual dishonesty, and it is FAR from just wholesome communication when these huge tech companies exploit flaws found within all of us to incentivize usage and addiction to the very vice that degrades and destabilizes all of civilization.
A life lost is still better than a life wasted.. to love and risk vulnerability and growth is always better than putting your walls up and staying inside the comfortable life of perpetual loss.
I stand with the notion that social media is destroying society. And not only the young. I am from the gen z and remember laughing off all the „old Man” talk about how dangerous is the stuff that i use so frequently. It is only when i connected the dots and noticed how my and my Peers’ issues are atleast getting worse, if not being entirely because of social media.
People nowadays go about how they have, say, ADHD and need medications for that. While they sit on their phones all day NOT KNOWING that the constant flow of bits of information is directly linked to they inability to focus their attention.
Thank God there are scientists who explain this stuff and the problems that we have. This knowledge is necessary. It is in our human nature to assume that what IS is the normal, or natural stare of being. So growing up watching porn, connexting with friends only thhrough games and the internet will seem normal.
And the issues which arise from that will be associated with something else. Too often the „toxic” parents. Yes our parents do not understand us and are not perfect, but OUR lifestyle choices also play a huge role.
Unfortunately parents are the only defense here. Some kids are mature enough to navigate the minefield of social media, others are not. Parents need to monitor and be the bad guy if necessary.
I don't think that's unfortunate at all. The more we outsource parental responsibility to institutions, the less responsibility parents end up taking.
I was given pretty close to free reign on the internet from a very young age and never went anywhere unsavory, because my parents raised me right. You do have to talk to kids about online safety, a lot of which applies to real life as well (how to spot predators, et cetera).
Social media is a tough one, if I were a father, I would emphasize that it's mostly garbage.
The problem is that parents are ill-equipped to handle social media themselves. Think of giving a loaded gun to a child. It is indeed possible to teach a child how to handle a gun properly, but how can you teach a child about gun safety when the parents themselves don't know gun safety!! The influence of the internet and social media is poorly understood. It's like were kids playing with a loaded gun, and we shall face the consequences.
@@Jimraynor45 Yep you hit the nail on the head here. It ALWAYS goes back to the parents technically and yet we have systemically destroyed parenting over the past 50 years. It's always the same dog and pony show. Everyone passes the buck while society keeps falling apart.
I don't trust the government to regulate parents either. Then our only option is to regulate the companies that are intentionally using their money to exploit people to gain the most amount of money possible.
I love these debates, please continue to publish them!
This was a tough one.
I agree that social media is a bigger problem than Soave let's onto. He would've done better to acknowledge everything Haidt said but stuck to the answer isn't the government.
Which is my position.
Haidt REALLY clocked him when he couldn't answer the question of, "if not social media, then what," very well.
Don't agree with Haidt but I deeply appreciate his work and he made the better argument.
i quitted social media 3 years ago now when i go out with people i feel like im alone they use their phone 80 percent of the time just to check instagram likes its frustrating
Sometimes people do it as a filler when there is an awkward silence more than them needing to see what's on their phone.
@@DarkAngel2512 an addiction.
@@barrydworak that too.
Haidt makes valid points, social medias impact branches out further than just a screen. I’m 24. I grew up watching these platform monsters take over society subtly but rapidly. If a youngster isn’t on these platforms, they are viewed different or have difficulty connecting with others (on top of how difficult it already is on its own without technology, etc.). Let’s say they do connect then they have nothing to talk about because the other person is always on their phone or their existence depends on a camera. Human connection is hard because now, it’s not only youngsters but also older audiences who are INFLUENCED by these platforms (even through their kids, loved ones, coworkers, friends etc. It’s. NETWORK).. We have kids who are refusing to go to college or dropping out to be just that.. influencers, musicians. Unachievable and unrealistic standards for money, beauty, success.. it’s shaping the minds of people and most importantly young people! Our morals, stands, expectations are changing and therefore so does our future and ambitions and personality. Did you know there is now such a thing as “Toxic Positivity” I mean seriously? I’m not saying it’s the end of the world but the way it’s effecting this to divorce rates, cheating rates, scamming rates, trends that have put people in hospitals or even got them physically injured …. Yeah it should worry you and there needs to be more awareness on this topic and something done. The fact that there isn’t and instead my generation is too focused on making 8 second videos with stupid facial expressions proves just how brainwashed and asleep we are to life.
Entertainment starts with Enter, what you allow to enter in your mind, body and spirit.
You don't have to restrict speech to restrict the like, retweet/share and algorithmic promotion or suppression of speech to influence the viewer more than would otherwise occur.
The biggest problem is poor parenting. With girls being seriously affected by 10 - 12, it's because they haven't been given a sufficient foundation from 0 - 10 for where they get their value as human beings and a failure to be made aware of the predatory nature of modern society. I raised four kids, mostly by myself, with three being girls, so I'm not just theorizing. One of the most threatening trends of modern life is the lack of children making a connection with the earth and nature. Spending a lot of time together as a family in nature hiking, climbing, skiing, backpacking, and exploring was essential to the building of strong character, confidence, and sense of personal responsibility for my kids.
Yah feedback about parenting might help.
@@buffalobill2874
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but It's how kids are raised, right from the start, that make them so susceptible to the dark side of social media.
@@midi510 yes i am agreeing that parents need super nanny service (in order) to be held to account so they can develop appropriate supportive relationships with their kids and not favour one over another and not bully one kid to set them up for yet more bad relationships. For the personal growth of all family members. It doesn't work when only a victim gets coached on self improvement (amounts to victim blaming and a lack of accountability for bullies)
Me Dad likes outdoor stuff like hiking but parents watched tennis on TV instead, doing stuff like that when he had a spare moment.
@@midi510 Never going to happen lol. It's true it always comes back to parenting and yet the parents are the problem, and they are not doing anything.
@@seemlesslies
Maybe a culture that held parents responsible for the kids they produce and valued good parenting would make a difference. I don't really hear anything about parenting and how it affects society.
A couple places to start are: make a commitment to always do what's best for the child over what's easiest for the parent; make sure that there's no question in the child's heart or mind that they are loved unconditionally; teach by example, which means getting your own shit together (they'll learn that that's a normal process of life and strive to do it, too). I could go on, but it's not like people don't know what's right, they just don't care.
Can be summed up in one 10 second moment at around 1:07:15 when haidt says it’s about the dose response question and that all kids would be better without it and the handsome young dude’s just like, “yea but I don’t feel that way because my feelings.”
I really liked Robbie’s comment about tobacco harm. Except for the opposite reason, tobacco lobbyists argued for decades that it was not as harmful as it actually was and it took a very long time for regulatory change principally because of the argument that there was insufficient evidence to justify the regulations. I hope more evidence is accumulated to debate the issue in a more informed matter.
Robby didn't seem to be able to acknowledge that even the issues he raised as counter points are issues enhanced because of social media platforms.
Political discourse for example, the aggressive nature of that has been amplified by the use of social media. These are the places where people share and argue there opinion, much of which comes across as very alarmist, very divisive and probably scary. Without the social media platforms people aren't being bombarded with this constantly. Nor by the people they would normally call friends.
I think he struggled to acknowledge the impact of social media not just on the individual but on the way it has shaped and changed many functions of society.
Thanks to Gene Epsein, the Soho Forum, and Reason for these wonderfully informative debates! Awesome. As well noted below ...not just a good debate in this case, but excellent rational debators on both sides.
Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself
Yes, create government control over speech, because we all know that the government knows how we should all live.
You make no sense dude. Corporate private companies can still be tyrannical. The new public square is online so simply apply the 1st to social media so they can’t censor us anymore
@@harrychristofi6725 The only reason why corporations like google and Facebook have such massive control of speech is due to government giving them subsidies through tax breaks and protecting them by enforcing strict copyright and IP(Intellectual Property) regulations, reforming or maybe even abolishing IP and rolling back copyright regulations + simplifying the tax code should solve it.
@@harrychristofi6725 It's not a public square when everyone doesn't have unlimited access.
@@RealMTBAddict Not sure what you mean, social media companies are the new public square nowadays but not in the 1960s during the civil rights movement let’s say. Since they are we need to regulate them like public utilities
@@ANONYMOUS__USER__ I agree we need to stop giving them taxpayer money but also regulate them like public utilities so the 1st amendment applies to time to meaning they can’t censor us anymore
It’s so good to see a public discussion again
"He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that"..."teachers and learners go to sleep at their post when there is no enemy in the field"
What a fucking incredible set of quotes.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”
One of my favorites
@@maryahhaidery7986 idk i would never truly honestly want anyone not even the worst person who ever lived to experience clinical depression....i feel like that would be the one thing where if there were some kind of 'magic wand' i can't imagine that humans would in anyway be worse off if depression just disappeared and no one would ever have to have known about it/experienced it/etc...now i'm not talking about sadness or "depression" but the true like you are so bad off you have to go to the hospital not just like oh i'm "depressed" i wish i was never born, i just wanna die because i got fired/my spouse, kid or pet just died/etc. no just the clinical depression or the depression that actually causes people to kill themselves....surely we could live on just fine and dandy if that level of pain just never existed....surely we can't expect every human to fully understand it or we would just be sending our species to extinction...
@@Meloniraelewis I’m not sure I understand exactly how the experience of clinical depression is related to the quote from Mill unless you’re alluding to something mentioned in the debate (but it’s been a while since I’ve heard it so I can’t imagine what that could be).
It seems like you or a loved one might have experienced the severe and crippling kind of depression you’re describing. If so, I’m genuinely sorry. Having gone through something similar, I can empathize. I actually think maybe it would be beneficial for people who don’t know what it’s like to experience that feeling of utter hopelessness and disconnection for a few moments (I agree that it would be too horrible to inflict on even an enemy for a prolonged time). But I’m not sure I’d want it to disappear from the earth completely. I think a great deal of our best art and literature and music comes from that dark place and if we study it more, perhaps it can tell us more about how our mind, body and life connect to shape our perception of the world.
I think it’s only when I came out of that state after having been in it for a long time that I realized how subjective reality was - How a life that seemed hollow yesterday could seem worthwhile today and the pain that once felt interminable could fade in to a half-remembered dream.
I’m sorry if you’ve ever had to suffer through that darkness or if you’re suffering now but it does get better. I wish you well.
What a great debate. Because I had the expectation that both sides would use logic and sound reasoning, I was actually much more open to both opinions than I would be if I anticipated one person holding themselves as morally superior to the other. I would love to see the results of the study Haidt mentioned. And now I'm probably going to read both of their books. As a side note, Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari seems to indicate that dating apps increase the pool of potential partners, but decrease satisfaction in one's partner. Interesting. I'd love to see more research on that, too.
duuuh.. see all the polyamory going on in millenials and gen z? how do you build a life with that
Anecdotally I observed this in my 6 and 7 year olds that their play with other kids was virtually never unsupervised and most often interfered with by another parent. It definitely is a network based issue that has not been explored.
Supervised and interfered play barely counts as play at all. It’s better than nothing, but as you can no doubt remember, kids are often completely different people if they’re being observed
9:30 "The reason why our generation is so messed up and has higher anxiety and depression than our parents, is because we have to deal with social media, everyone feels like they have to be perfect." - and that's because they have to be, because that's what they expect of boys, so they project their way of thinking about what standards boys have to measure up to on themselves, by comparison with other girls. This is female psychology in the sense that they're deeply aware that their looks matter, and when being faced daily with the reality that they're not as attractive as other girls, this constant, daily reminder shatters their self esteem and confidence, which results in depression and anxiety and everything else.
This happens to boys as well, but we don't care about those. In the past, communities were more isolated and because of this, the peaks, even if smaller in reality, appeared taller because there was no social media or internet to erase distance and time and provide easy and quick comparisons. Today you can instantly see that you're not that attractive compared to other women in other cities in your state or even in other countries. The internet has erased the local sexual market place and replaced it with a global dating market.
I think that the replacement of local with global is what the debate is about, but nobody sees it yet. A superclass of global people is being formed through the internet, and banning social media, be it Facebook or Instagram or Twitter will have no effect because while they provide easier access to information, the medium through which the information travels is much broader a concept than any social media technology, and it will persist regardless of any restrictions imposed on social media.
The rising rates of depression, anxiety and self harm are a result of a globalization of dating markets, aka what happens when human biology meets ever evolving and disrupting effects of technological progress. Boys can escape the realization of their genetic inferiority by immersing themselves into video games, while girls have no such escape due to their biology, differently wired brains and psyches, women being people oriented instead of object oriented like men are.
Wow. Robby made such an awesome point about people overreporting mental illness to gain more social clout and sympathy. The only problem is that social media most definitely exacerbates that problem. But restricting speech and having less discourse is never the answer. Even the most vile and hateful speech must be allowed, because if the only speech we agree with is permitted, then none of us will ever be free to speak our minds.
I don't think it is over-reporting, I think it is people using their intellect to create mental suffering in themselves and they develop "mental illness" in themselves.
Sure Robby can say that but the self harm and suicide rates for Gen Z has dramatically increased after 2008. That argument would make sense if there wasn't also a behavioral manifestation to point to.
Haidts research includes rises in suicide attempts and self harm, which cannot be lied about for attention.
@@vege4920 They cannot be lied about for attention means nothing when that's the entire reason they are mostly done in the first case. Many suicide attempts are just cries for attention. You just further proved my point. Thanks for that.
@@robertharvilla4881 you'r point was that people overreport mental ilness to get attention.
It implies that they are not actually suffering from mental ilness but are acting in that way to get attention.
To actually do self-harm or attempt suiciside you would have to have depression or some sort of mental ilness, or most people would think so.
If someone tries to kill themselves they are not faking it, and i think you were implying that they were.
Did i misunderstand you'r point?
I’m as conservative and libertarian as you get as a Christian and a republican and I love Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s brilliant insights as an honest liberal. Robby is a smart young libertarian and he does not have children and doesn’t have the emotional connection to defending his child sometimes irrationally as some parent do. That said he made the most Constitutional argument for liberty and personal responsibility but I vote for Dr. Haidt!
My niece is 15 and she stares at that phone all night long and gets no sleep. You know when she sleeps ????? In school
2/3 of the way into the debate, I think they drifted to the wrong debate, as if the argument is whether the government should be this iron hand that controls Instagram usage by kids. I think most of us would say no. Instead, the debate should be whether/what government regulations should be designed and applied to social media. Not just for children. For all aspects.
For example, who has the right to call what “fake news”, and what responsibilities come with that right? For years there had been questions on the social media platforms have become “news platforms” but what standards do they need to meet bearing that matter of fact right?
I wish Jonathan Haidt debated more about the “click bait business model” and whether/how it should be regulated.
great stuff, thanks to call involved with the event and thanks for sharing!!
Jonathan Haidt is my hero.
Very important topics! Great presentation. Thank you so much JH and RS!
This is a debate where the algorithm should push it, for its own sake.
Fr
If it’ll kill Twitter, I support it.
Elon Musk!
When I was young and I got home from school I went out and played. All I was told was to be home before dark. I wasn't afraid. In fact I even walked home from school by myself from a very young age. I rarely see my next door neighbors kids outside of their homes. In fact I asked one of my neighbors about his son because I hadn't seen him in months. He told me his son pretty much stays on his computer. Sad.
Really looking forward to Dr. Haidt's new book. We need more discussion on this topic.
The problem isn't social media in general, it's the specific design focus that today's major platforms have configured in order to maximize user interaction without concern about the effects it has on users. AoL was User to User and chatroom with less then 30 people in them and email, Geocities was a personal web page, Myspace was a regional search of users with a customization profile and direct user to user messages with a feed that didn't sort your timelines in any particular way to control what is presented to the user but instead let you control how to sort it and typically you would get most recent at the top and only posts from those in your friends. Myspace was social media without the intentional psyche manipulation and viral content that is heavily selected on the platforms side as to what you can list and post. On Myspace you had text fields you could add CSS for styling for creative profiles or you could just list all your fav bands spelling errors and all, Facebook has you select from a list of known artists allowing Facebook to collect very specific data on user profiles you are not allowed to register anonymously on. Twitter dies the same curation of presented content and is selective about what it allows to become viral with a bias on the messaging rather then allowing actual debate between the public while for a long time also limiting the characters in a post to something like 150 causing all nuance to be gone and creating viral public debate of a one sided nature with nothing but titles and headlines in each statement from those taking part. Instagram doesn't share friends pictures with other friends but instead creates legions of followers following a 'influencer' that presents a lifestyle that isn't realistic or healthy. Tic Tok has boiled down it's content to something similar to commercials at 15 seconds and also limits comments to 150 characters and is Instagram basically in short video clip format.
Social media today is not like the first net based social media and they are all engineered to be addictive and are nothing like the printing press the radio or television. Removing the engineered back end content sorting based on users personal collected data and just allowing users to connect with friends and family and separating that from a media feed so you don't have viral content being seeded into your actual IRL friends posts and moving discussions from the timeline onto a topic specific forum much like redit would be a far more healthy and still useful with all the benefits social media platform. Sadly that wouldn't be addictive or create verified user data that is free of random unwanted information in a database that the platform uses to target ads and manipulate users and so it would be less profitable. These social media platforms make far too much money when they could really have just set it and forget it and collected a steady profit and maintained a neutral public and personal useful social platform instead of going through all this effort to experiment and maximize what they got like a creepy stalker digging into private information while obfuscating the users understanding of what that data is being used for to effect them.
Well done. And thanks for talking.
The Speaker at 26:10 whom was speaking about limiting children on social media and other electronic devices is absolutely CORRECT! If there is ANY push whatsoever from our Government to step in, then that push should be NOT to allow any psychotropics be manufactured, prescribed or filled to these children who have been mentally harmed.
52:28 Great point
It's a really lame world that we live in. Imagine that the most exciting things that people can think of doing with their time is staring at a screen interacting with apps like Instagram, Twitter and TikTok. It's a dull world when you look about and most people are heads down staring at their phones everywhere you go. It's boring.
Yeah, illusion
Absolutely, this is something lost on many people now. How DULL and pitiful their lives have become. This isnt just a kid thing. My 65 yr old mother lives on her phone and facebook and stares all day long. Hasn't read a book in a decade, cant, she does not have the attention span anymore.
But, again, what a dull, lifeless world we live in now.
Or you get truly memorable moments where the instinct is to pull out the phone and record or take photos. This really bothers me at concerts or when out in nature. Don't record, don't take photos just embrace the moment and hold on to that memory for yourself.
Hes an "advertising doesnt work on me" guy.
Nick calls this an "oxford style debate", but the audience didn't shout anyone down so I don't know what he is talking about
Cynicism is rampant, I blame that for the decline of mental health.
Wipe Facebook off the face of the earth.
We would all be much happier.
AND Twitter!
Go live in China.
My least favorite part of any debate or lecture is the “questions from audience” segment. In theory, it’s nice to have interaction between audience and speakers, however it inevitably turns into multiple awkward and boring lectures from audience members who think they are the main character. Just ask your dumb question in 10 seconds or less and get off the Mic. I’m here to listen Haidt and the other guy.
When social media and the Internet came out, no one under the age of 18 should have been allowed access, unless under strict supervision at school!
❤️ Haidt is on the target!
This might be the most compelling and thought provoking debate I've ever seen.
This was absolutely fantastic!
Ultimately, parents are responsible for what their kids are doing. What we need is a social movement that empowers parents to do what is necessary to discipline their children.
The principles of Free Speech should be applied. Any Social media platform should offer a variety of user-regulated mute options. The platform itself is denied any editorial capacity vis-a-vis the users. Thus feedback is also freed; e.g., being blocked can go many ways but the capacity to be hateful gets a clear message. Being silenced is powerful. Ask anyone professionally in the game, advertising, opinion writers, editorials, etc.
I wanted to slap Rob for his entire open.
Robby Soave is young and unexperienced in this matter of evaluating children/ families.
Jon won the debate 25 mins into the video.
I have two small boys (7 and 4 year old). Am i the only parent who actively has has banned social media from my house? My kids will not be allowed on those hate fests until they turn 16, no matter how much they cry about it.
Social media should be limited until children are old enough that they have outgrown the terrible influences of peer pressure. It’s obvious that that the current arrangement is devastating emotionally to young people. Society puts other limits on young people, for their protection. This is no different.
Haidt killed this debate. social media is a cancer. it's done some good, but it's done immense harm, especially in how we converse with eachother in person. it's destroyed a person's ability to create soft skills. I notice that a lot when performing interviews on these youngins, they are like a deer in headlights when they aren't following a very specific script
But TH-cam is a social media…
@@whm_w8833 its not. Unless a NYT article is too. Its literally just a comment section.
@@stephenmiller3800 first, isn’t this video is just people presenting their arguments and we are responding to that argument.
Second, like instagram and tik tok, people can post videos, gifs and pics of something they want to say or show such as cat playing bongos and memes.
Third, the “harms” and effects of TH-cam from radicalization is similar to Facebook and tik tok.
Yes
What I want as legal rules and internal policy for social media
1. Allow ALL Speech.
Any topic. Any opinions.
Any phrases.
2. Punish anyone who censors free speech
3. Disciplinary action for the true bullying. Those who are offended by anything. Those who want to remove anyone he disagrees with.
4. Fact checking from site is illegal
5. Encouragement of good manners
Also
5. Limit ownership of different media sites.
6. No cross sharing of search history.
7. No selling or sharing of personal information or choices
I'm not sure the I've got the term "social media" defined well enough, and which are potentially harmful and not. I take it Twitter,Tumblr, Facebook and Instagram is social media. Maybe Pinterest too? What about LinkedIn, is that harmful? WhatsApp? MySpace? Steam community? Discord? Reddit? What's just a communication platform and when does it transition from that to social media? What's the criteria? What exactly defines it? And what's the crucial element that makes it harmful as apposed to other general communication and community platforms?
All the above, including TH-cam. Anywhere that you socialise/connect with others as opposed to a one-way stream like tv or radio. Its dangerous depending on the user. But it is def highly addictive.
Good chat
Haidt is such a rhetorical and intellectual beast. Charms the audience and convinces eloquently.
Woop woop! Great pairing
Some reasons for increased suicide:
- kids who went through the 2008 financial collapse and saw their homes stripped from their parents and possibly the creation of broken homes and dysfunctional relationships
- student debt and thr inability to find employment that pays off those debts
- educational systems pitting kids race and social class against each other
Most certainly, but what is the catalyst for their inability to face adversity?
The echo chamber and narcissistic incentives of social media...
These kids are having anxiety attacks when their friends don't like and share their cat videos.
Haidt addressed these economic factors: why does depression and anxiety continue to go up as the economy improved? doesn't make sense. And as an 18 year old growing up in a pretty liberal city, the crt indoctrination you're alluding to isn't nearly as potent as you think it is.
Haidt addressed this. Why did the rates of suicide and depression increase as the economy got better and why is it unique to women. Particularly those on the left?
This made me wonder if Mr. Soave has children old enough to be getting involved on social media without his knowledge or permission. If so, all he has to do is keep on living. He will see for himself. Especially if he has girls. All the social media sites do is ask kids if they are 13. ( "Honor system" ) Kids don't have to have their parents verify their age or give permission prior to use. It's also not good that parents can't sue these social media companies.
That isn't limited to social media. Digital age restrictions are essentially non-existent throughout the entire web. A parent in the 50s viewed going outside like parents today view the internet. The difference is parent in the past didn't seek to censor snd shape the outside world to protect their children but put up safeguards in their home and yard.
@@conchobarI just want them to follow their own policies. The age limit is 13. just like longstanding age limits for babysitting, driving, signing contracts, getting a job, working past 10 on a school night (in my state), getting married, going into a bar, and buying cigarettes and liquor. My point is, lots of things have age requirements and those requirements need to be met.
@@carolblume5073 a self imposed age limit (by the platforms) is an age limit that they can take any reasonable measures to enforce or no measures.
@@ribbonsofnight I believe there's enough science behind this for age limits to be enforced. Identity and age need to be verified FOR EVERYONE. Two girls in my state were killed by a man who contacted them on social media and pretended to be a boy their age. He lured them to a secluded area. I'm sure law enforcement knows of many more cases like this. There is a significant harm issue in more ways than one. This example is proof enough of harm without even considering how interacting on iphones and social media hinders kids' development. And when shit like this goes down, PARENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUE.
If everybody is doing it, it is most likely wrong.
Haidt and Soave demonstrated that respectful, intelligent debate is still possible. In addition, their interest and listening and learning from each other is a further demonstration of how to transcend left/right ideology in that both, although having an ideological foundation, were willing to let the data or evidence trump ideological bias.
I'm excited. I have a lot of respect for both. Should be good
I own a hair salon and Instagram is used by the majority of people I see as they sit.
I also get to hear their beauty expectations and ideals and, anecdotally, I can tell you that they (across generations x, y and z with increasing frequency) seek beauty on the platform and appear to compare expectations for their daily life with the images found there.
I've also seen employees post pictures of clients and, across the board, it appears that the amount of likes, comments and new client requests seem relative to how well the picture was posed and filtered.
No one can explain the 2012/2013 change that Jonathan Haidt mentioned. I like Robbie but even he couldn't offer a plausible solution.
4:30 He doesn't mention "free speech" via their protected government monopoly status. For example: If Twitter had been forced to allow competition in its "come on" phase, people who had counted on Zurker (etc.) as a "backup plan" would have simply flowed into it. The problem isn't social media. The problem is "an already-existing unfree government that has 100% captured social media." (...As much as the problem is also "a Prussian-education-indoctrinated society of idiots that no longer has any expectation of free speech.")
@UCcZC4HGCZtue_Y1Vt29B6wg wrote: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I explained it in one short paragraph of clear English. The problem is an enforced lack of freedom, at the governmental level, and a lack of property rights of social media competitors. The problem is corrupted government, not just "a few corrupt social media companies." The clear corrupting influence on all the social media companies is their total cowardice, their instant "caving in" to government censorship demands that, in the past, all Americans would have expected them to stand up to.
You wrote: "I won't even go into that nonsense you wrote," ...Because it's not nonsense, and you're not smart enough to criticize one word of it.
You wrote: "but...just because you fked your own government up by being sticklers for rules that require everything in writing doesn't mean you shouldn't fix outcomes that stem from those rules."
...There's no way to do this but to fix the corruption of the underlying rules. Sociopaths don't fix messes that they themselves made, because that would require them to admit culpability. You might want to read Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and look at how pseudo-law in Germany operated. Police were only "accountable" to government bureaucrats in positions of greater power and (false) authority than themselves. That's the nature of top-down political power.
You wrote: "And social media is a problem; there's no need to frame things as if you need to fix your government before doing anything to business practices that hurt the young."
You're just plain wrong about this. There's no harm to the young from free speech. The harm to the young comes from their having been dumbed-down in government schools to the point where they aren't expected to engage with speech at an adult level.
You wrote: "What you meant to say was, that there are underlying issues worth fixing as well, and preferably even before social media."
I meant to say what I said. If you're too dumb to understand the implications of corrupted law on every single social media company, then that's on you.
You wrote: "Then you could describe it as well..."
I meant what I said. The government is the problem, the social media companies are just spineless cowards who are self-selecting for cowardice because of the Title 9 and Civil Rights Act language in their boilerplate. This allows for totally arbitrary and selective censorship based on partisan goals. If no social media company is willing to stand up against such legal language being required of them, "by default" then no social media problems can be fixed. Indeed, given the corrupted state of American law, no social media companies that operate within law can be fixed, and we are all better off simply seeking out decentralized free speech absolutist fora that cannot be censored.
You wrote: "but you're bringing a big bucket of water along with that baby."
Your position is unclear, and your belief that teens are damaged by access to 'harmful free speech' on social media is idiotic. The teens you speak of were already damaged by their parents, and by government-run schools, and by their own lack of evolved intelligence (in the case of liberals or low-IQ people who eschew math and science), and by lack of political freedom (i.e. being afraid to speak the truth about drugs for fear of being raided by police or the DEA, or being afraid to speak the truth about guns for fear of the BATFE). The problem is being surrounded by equally-degraded people...which would also be a problem even if they weren't on social media. Complaining about the high-speed, high-volume delivery of low-quality speech gets the problem woefully wrong.
The harms of social media that have been claimed by cultural critics have been overstated, and the harm of government-control of social media has been grossly understated by the same people. All that social media needs to do to reduce the harm of social media to teens is to slightly improve those teens' access to filtering controls on their own feeds that determine what they see.
I disagree with Robby. I see it in the children today. They cannot put that phone down and their parents do nothing about it. When I was a child I couldn't bring the TV or the radio with me out to play !!!!!!!!!!! Now they go out to socialize and they are staring at their phones even when they are with their friends and no one speaks.......
Another thing that haidt isn't taking into consideration is the fact that the kids that use social media a lot might have been already predisposed to be depressed. He is not looking at why are these kids using social media a lot? One of the reasons it's because they already have bad home environments or unattentive parents. Who knows what the other reasons are. This reminds me of the study that was done on kids sleeping. They assumed that it was sleeping that caused productivity but it was the fact that kids who slept had more attentive parents. Very good debate but I feel like haidt for whom I hold a lot of respect for it's not looking at the full picture here.
Thing is I suffered depression before but I used dancing to cheer me up. When I got my internet phone that went out the window due to how addictive social media is. And from thereon it's a vicious cycle. You're tired because you sit more so you sit more because you're tired. You are emotionally more tired but seek a fix to cure you're depression. It's a drug and highly addictive. The creator of virtual reality told us to get off social media. We need to find a way to curb our usage. I say this whilst ironically having been on my phone most of the morning whether on Fbk or listening to TH-cam videos.
I cannot avoid thinking that Robby has not spent almost any time forming his arguments. So weak
Comparison is the thief of joy. No where is comparison more easily executed than on social media.
Ah, one of these 'Here's an informed opinion, based on data and empirical findings' VS 'Here's what I vaguely kinda think, maybe' debates.
Congratulations Jonathan 🙂
Great discussion but I couldn’t believe when Rob compared teens use of Instagram to his own playing of video games. I don’t think he properly recognized how different a fixed Xbox in what could possibly be a shared tv in the family living room is to a smart phone in a pocket. To forget how much mobility has effected the constant strain of social media is to disregard how much the brain changes from repeated irritation, stress, or even trauma. Apples and oranges! But I don’t know what the govt can do.
I don't think Soave was saying that video games and Instagram are equivalent. He was saying that there have been many moral panics about how innovations are harming children and video games are an example.
Robby Soave immediately comes across as disingenuous with his inapplicable comparisons to one to many rather than many to many forms of media. Deliberately obfuscating the debate to manipulate and score arguement winning points while not seeking the truth of the matter. Waste of time to listen to his poisonous words.
I am against regulation from state. It's a slippery slope to censorship. These are private companies and they can regulate as they please. The market will decide.
I believe Soave shouldn't engage in the conflict of SM being good or evil. This is a controversial issue and there are many arguments against it.
He should focus on why the state should not be involved
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut they aren't monopolies. Social media isn't owned by one company.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut okay dude. I don't care what CNBC says. The economic definition of what a monopoly is, is THE ONLY game in town. Facebook is nowhere NEAR the only game in town. TikTok, Discord, Twitter, Snapchat, TH-cam, Reddit, Signal, LinkedIn, Stack Exchange and so on.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut yeah well then it isn't a monopoly and doesn't have the problems usually associated with monopolies. If you want to reinvent what monopoly means, go ahead.
But when economists talk about the harms of monopoly, they are talking about a true monopoly. A true monopoly has virtually no competition - which is why they can set prices to whatever they want. Facebook has plenty competition - which is part of the reason why their stock tanked so hard.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut it does follow. Economists have s definition of monopoly. And they have economic reasons why monopoly is bad (raising prices, treating customers poorly, etc). Those arise from a lack of competition. Facebook doesn't fit this definition of monopoly because it has PLENTY of competition.
So yes it DOES follow. It follows that if you're not using the common (economic) definition of monopoly, then the common (economic) problems associated with monopolies don't apply necessary, since these problems were derived from the definition of the word.
You're welcome to make your own definition and use economic theory/studies to deduce why your definition of monopoly entails bad outcomes.
But what I said does follow. If by monopoly you mean a company that has plenty of competition then yes I support monopolies.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut i agree with @GeekOverdose. They attack SM in the basis of monopoly, so they can control people's free speech.
If you want to see a monopoly, check for monopoly on security, on health, on schools. These are services that you can "buy" only from state
1st box (internet) was needed to level the playing field for the space age.
2nd box (smart phones) should be more of a privilege that you need to be of age and trained for so it doesn’t take over your life.
3rd box (social media) I closed during the pandemic and never opened again because it always made my day worse whereas real life and the other things Jonathan mentioned like Nintendo switch for example were far superior for connecting with friends/family.
Social media is no good (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, tiktok, Snapchat) you can tell when their way of “connecting” or “socializing” is by PERFORMING that they are not good for anyone’s mind especially teen girls. That was an excellent point Jonathan made among many others. The guy arguing against it did his best but even he sounds convinced of Jonathan lol
Has anybody else noticed how Haidt substantiated all his arguments with research data while Robbin never provided any solid study for his own arguments? Sure, Robbin's arguments may seem reasonable, but so does a thesis that Sun revolves around the Earth... until you do a proper scientific (!) research.
I was amused by Mr. Souve's response to Dr. Haidt's challenge to provide an alternative hypothesis to explain the data. Instead of a serious attempt to provide a testable alternative, Mr. Soave simply gave his personal impressions, e.g. things were more chill and relaxed in the 90s. I don't know whether he really expected that we should take his unsupported opinions seriously. Dr. Haidt tried to respond to Souve's vague impressionistic musings, but it seemed that Dr. Haidt's evidence and logic fell on deaf ears. Finally, I was very disappointed by the rude statistician who, more interested in showing off than in serious inquiry, interrupted Dr. Haidt as he tried to give a response.
I think anything social the government does ends up a negative in the long run because it externalizes the responsability from the individual, you can't give the government the function to raise your kids correctly YOU need to do it, so go seek a psychologist that specializes in raising kids, get your act together, be a good parent even if it requires tough decisions.
Life's difficult, REALLY difficult, but we can't run to papa state whenever something goes wrong, because honestly? They don't know much better than you, to become an adult is to realize your parents, and everyone else for that matter, are as clueless as you are. What government does is infantilize people by playing the role of the father and the mother, it promises you security, direction and comfort as long as you don't defy their arbitrary rules, just like a tyrannical father or a devouring mother.
So I am a little disappointed that no one brought up the Pareto Principle. It is the very minute populations that are doing the mass shootings/suicides and to say that we don't need to worry about it because it only affects a small minority is very short-sighted in my opinion. Both of them brought up good points I believe, but the wording of the vote was so loose, it would give the government cart blanche to mess things up.
im 30min in and its fascinating
(skip ads doesn't work.)
I'm not worried about the teens on social media, it's the adults I'm concerned about.
If they actively act as editorials instead of publishers of information they should have their government protection stripped. Actively regulating them through the government will allow the government even more control over the flow of information which a very bad idea.
Removing subsidies and protections is always the right answer.
Lord knows you don't know what you're talking about 🙏
The wariness of student attitudes and inability to keep emotions in check has indeed been horrifying from 2012 to the present. But what is worse is the magnification of a behavior that all previous generation members say about the next: they think they know so much more than we do. When it comes to pop culture, one should grant that. But when it comes to science, history, economics, law, and philosophy, they simply cannot know more than someone who has been studying, teaching, applying, writing and publishing, and critically thinking about those areas for 20-50 years longer. But that is what we encounter. Somehow, 5-15 minutes of a video on social media or YT has given youth a sense of superiority and expertise which they absolutely do not have. When they argue back against this, they typically state the same right back. America will fall if this trend continues/flourishes. It creates a narcissism that will prove to be societally threatening and from which there will be no turning back
I generally dislike gov't but sorry: why then can the gov't regulate drinking age, smoking age, gambling age, explicit film/tv plus all their accesibilities (as in distance from schools, etc), but they *shouldn't* be laws in place for social media?
I'm 47, studying a psychology degree and have a daughter and firmly believe than parents that give BABIES and/or underage children tablets, smartphones and social media access should be liable under child abuse laws.
At the very least the use of SM should be age-restricted, to at least 16 and probably 18. It is TERRIBLE for adolescent mental health.
I've had a cellphone since I was 16, I've never used anything but a flip-phone, and I've never been lacking for anything that I didn't already have a general idea about who/where to find that couldn't wait until I got to my computer at home (a desktop). Even my cellphone plan is only something like 30 minutes a month, but I only really use it for emergencies while I'm out, so I've never had a problem with that. All of the above being said, I still don't like the idea of the _government_ regulating these industries. I don't like the idea of people under 16 being allowed to use it & I see it dangerous to kids & the weak-minded, but it's still speech, pure & simple.
Eventually Social Media will be an individual with an app that holds and allocates contact information with tiered network access for other people based on community specific relationships and activities.
Dr. Haidt is brilliant and an excellent rhetorician.
No fucking way it’s Robby Soave from rising 😂
Robby Soave is obviously super young compared to Jon Haidt, but Jon Haidt really does a much better job in this debate. He's arguing about the issue - Soave keeps seeming to imply he's just saying stuff that he "kinda thinks probably." (I should note that I would be just like Soave however)
Regarding dating apps: couldn't they be contributing to social polarisation - albeit minimally - as less loving couples are having to compromise over differing political view points, having vetted one another before interaction?