Moral Panics
Every New Technology Gets Blamed for Ruining a Generation
The same fear we now direct at smartphones was aimed, word for word, at the novel in the 18th century.
The Idea
There is a remarkably stable script that societies follow whenever a new communication technology arrives. First comes adoption, usually by the young. Then comes alarm from those who didn't grow up with it. Then come the formal warnings — from doctors, clergy, politicians, or academics — about addiction, attention, moral decay, and the corruption of youth. Then, quietly, the technology becomes furniture. Nobody worries that teenagers are "addicted" to books anymore. This pattern has a name: the moral panic. Sociologist Stanley Cohen defined it in 1972 as a moment when a condition, episode, or group of persons emerges to be defined as a threat to societal values and interests — often disproportionately to any actual evidence of harm. What makes tech moral panics distinctive is how they tend to cluster around cognition and character: the fear isn't just that the thing is dangerous, but that it is making us stupider, shallower, or less human. The insidious part is that this pattern doesn't mean every concern is wrong. Some technologies do cause real harm. But the moral panic frame tends to collapse genuine nuance — mixing together real risks, class anxieties, generational resentment, and commercial interest — into a single undifferentiated alarm. The result is that we get very loud about the wrong things, and the actual harms (often structural, often boring) get less attention than the vivid, narrative-friendly ones.
In the World
In 1883, the French Academy of Medicine convened to discuss a troubling new epidemic among young people: the compulsive use of the telegraph. Young men, they reported, were becoming mentally exhausted from the unnatural pace of information, severed from the rhythms of natural thought. Sound familiar? Fast forward to 1936, and the target was the radio. A formal report to the British Medical Association warned that children were becoming "neurasthenic" — a Victorian catch-all for frayed nerves and attention problems — from excessive listening. The following decade it was comic books, which prompted a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing in 1954, driven largely by psychiatrist Fredric Wertham's book *Seduction of the Innocent*, which argued that comics caused juvenile delinquency. The Comics Code Authority was born from that panic. Wertham's data, it later emerged, had been substantially fabricated. Then came television, then video games, then the internet, then social media. Each generated its own expert testimony, its own political hearings, its own cohort of parents convinced their children were uniquely imperilled. What's striking isn't just the repetition — it's how each panic borrowed the emotional vocabulary of the last one, as if society were reading from the same template and simply swapping in the new technology's name.
Why It Matters
Recognising the moral panic template doesn't make you a tech apologist — it makes you a more precise thinker about risk. When the next alarm sounds (and it will), the useful questions are: Who is making this claim, and what do they gain from it? Is the proposed harm specific and measurable, or vivid and vague? Is the concern being applied evenly across society, or mostly to the young and the poor? Is the evidence peer-reviewed, replicated, and proportionate to the proposed response? This matters because panics are expensive. They consume regulatory attention that could go toward real harms. They generate bad laws written in the heat of fear rather than the light of evidence. And they have a habit of targeting access — banning or restricting things from the people who can least push back — while leaving the structural issues untouched. The sharpest version of this skill isn't cynicism. It's the ability to hold two things at once: yes, social media platforms have real design problems worth addressing seriously — and also, the loudest, most viral version of that concern is probably not the most accurate one.
A Question to Ponder
Is there a technology you currently worry about — for yourself or for others — where you haven't yet distinguished between what the evidence says and what the story feels like?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable