"dumb" phones among Gen Z, which have limited or no internet connectivity. These phones are gaining popularity among young people who want to limit their screen time and disconnect from the digital world.
Read More
Mohit Rajhans take
Every time the “ban social media for teens” conversation flares up, it feels like adults trying to solve a messy cultural problem with a clean legal gesture. It is understandable. It is emotional. It is also a little bit fantasy.
The Independent’s argument is basically this: a blanket ban is clumsy, teenagers will route around it, and the real fix is media literacy for kids and adults, plus actual platform accountability.
I’m with that, with one important addition: in 2026, this is not just “social media.” It is AI-shaped social media, which means we are not teaching kids how to “use apps,” we are teaching them how to live inside persuasion engines.
A ban is simple to explain and easy to announce. It signals control. It gives parents a storyline.
But in real life, bans do three predictable things:
If your policy is “good kids will comply,” it is not a policy. It is a hope.
The Independent nails a point most debates dodge: adults did not get proper training either. We learned by getting fooled, outraged, scammed, and manipulated, then we called it “the internet.”
That gap is now bigger because AI lowers the cost of deception.
"dumb" phones among Gen Z, which have limited or no internet connectivity. These phones are gaining popularity among young people who want to limit their screen time and disconnect from the digital world.
Read More