The question we should all be asking.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
-Upton Sinclair, The Jungle

In my book, I pointed to many nonpartisan organizations who were working tirelessly to educate, challenge, and reform tech regulations on behalf of our kids. But what I didn’t do was to point to the many who were not. In the interest of keeping my work tailored toward the main sphere of influence we parents can control, I chose to focus efforts and energies toward what happens under our roof.

But here’s what you and I know to be true: our individual roofs offer little shelter in a tsunami of widespread corruption. It’s time to call out the nonprofits, legislators, for-profit companies and industry leaders who are thwarting parental efforts for tech reform because, to put it plainly, it is more profitable for them if they don’t.

Recently, the Surgeon General released an official advisory that social media should require a warning label. (He’s right.) A logical course of action would be for our most trusted resources on childhood development to heed the same caution, yes? But they’re not. In fact, many of the organizations in which we have historically looked to for facts, statistics, science, research, and parental education are continually releasing “balanced” messaging that feels - frankly - akin to a TeenVogue article.

And of course they are. Their donors need them to. A cursory glance into the many organizations reveal precisely why industry leaders continue to report half-hearted guidelines, nuanced messaging, or dismissive moderation as the answer to today’s top addiction.

“Corporations have realized that you don’t have to convince the public or government officials of anything — all you have to do is create the illusion of doubt,” explains former assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) David Michaels. “And they do that by piloting bogus studies, organizing partisan think tanks, supplying dubious congressional witnesses, and anything else they can think of to give regulators enough cover to plausibly look the other way. If you’ve ever heard a politician say, “The science is still unclear” or “We need to keep researching the issue,” there’s a good chance that was made possible by industry-funded pseudo-science.”

We’ve heard it indeed. Let’s take a look at just a few of the organizations currently receiving the majority of media attention as trusted resources re: screen time and youth, their official tech positioning, and - lastly - their key advisors, donors, funders, and patrons:

• American Academy of Pediatrics
  Tech position: “Is social media good or bad for your mental health? It can be both! Create a healthy balance of time online… social media use starts during childhood and can play a significant role in the relationships and experiences that impact children and teens’ growth, development and mental health.”
  Corporate partners: Google, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, AT&T

• National PTA
  Tech position: “Current research on the impact of social media on children and youth exists but is limited… our association understands and affirms that social media and other digital technology can be a driver of success, enhancing the learning experience and fostering creativity and connectedness among students, educators, families and communities.”
  National sponsors: Google, AT&T, Meta, Discord, TikTok, and YouTube

• Common Sense Media
  Tech position: “We need more research and public understanding of the specific challenges that groups like youth with depressive symptoms, youth of color, and LGBTQ+ young people face with social media. We also need more public education for families, schools, teens, and beyond on how to manage the challenges that social media presents, without diminishing the benefits.”
  Foundation partners: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Bezos Family Foundation, Gates Ventures

This should anger us. This should cause a ruckus, and it should appear in every headline in every hometown, and it should propel us all into the streets. But what streets? Our beloved town hall has been replaced by X, lined with algorithmic paths that promise collective progress for the small price of a child’s soul.

The question we should all be asking is this: why? Why - after a decade of solid research that states otherwise - are our nation’s industry leaders continuing to advocate for balanced tech usage when science has proven that moderation is ineffective at best, detrimental at worst?

But we already know the answer, don’t we? By proving loyal to BigTech, our nation’s leaders can keep their jobs, their power, their status. When the rain comes, they need only retreat to their bunkers. What do they care of our roof?