As of last month, more than 2,400 claims were pending in the overseen by a judge in California. More than 10,000 individual cases and nearly 800 school district claims were pending across . And more than 40 have filed or joined lawsuits against the companies.

The lawsuits allege that the platforms were deliberately engineered to maximize addictive use among children and teenagers, and that the companies knowingly designed them to drive young people鈥檚 prolonged engagement, despite mounting evidence that they can be harmful.

Their recommendation algorithms amplify harmful material, the lawsuits allege. And weak age-verification systems have allowed underaged users broad access. The companies that run the platforms knew about these risks, they say, but failed to warn users and families about the mental health risks, often revealed by their own research. 

The companies have disputed these claims, maintaining that their platforms include safety tools. But one of them, Meta, which runs Facebook, acknowledged that the lawsuits could be costly, this year with the Securities and Exchange Commission warning investors that the lawsuits and mass arbitration demands could 鈥渟ignificantly impact鈥� its finances.

That could happen soon. In late March, two landmark verdicts came down within 24 hours of each other: On March 25, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for designing that harmed a 20-year-old woman who started using them as a child. The jury awarded her $6 million. The companies that run Snapchat and TikTok were also named as defendants, but reached undisclosed settlements before trial.

A day earlier, a New Mexico jury for failing to protect kids from child exploitation and ordered it to pay $375 million for consumer-protection violations. 鈥淵ou add it all up and it could be hundreds of billions of dollars,鈥� social psychologist Jonathan Haidt recently.

As with the tobacco and opioid lawsuits, one major question is emerging: Where will the money go? Will the proceeds benefit children, or will they end up simply padding states鈥� and school districts鈥� budgetary bottom lines?

To answer this, 社区黑料 turned to Elizabeth Gaines, founder and CEO of the , a nonprofit focused on helping governments and communities figure out how to pay for programs and services that support children and youth. The organization doesn鈥檛 run the actual programs, but helps leaders and policymakers build sustainable funding systems to establish and keep these programs going, such as early childhood education, afterschool programs and mental health services.

It specializes in so-called 鈥渟trategic public financing,鈥� which pushes communities to examine how much they spend on children, how much they actually need and where they can find or generate more funding for, in Gaines鈥檚 words, 鈥渄eeper investments鈥� for kids. 

A lifelong child advocate, Gaines has worked in the field for 30 years, from think tanks to state-level advocacy. She founded the funding project eight years ago. 鈥淚 looked around and realized that no one at the national level was really focusing on the public financing of child and youth development and programs and services writ large,鈥� she said.

The project now tracks more than 300 federal, state and local funding streams that support children and youth from cradle to career.

Gaines began her career in her home state of Missouri, where she worked on ensuring one key goal: that proceeds from the 1998 benefited children. 

Spoiler alert: They didn鈥檛. A budget shortfall prompted lawmakers to redirect millions from the settlement into the state鈥檚 general fund. Gaines now admits, 鈥淲e did not get involved early enough in that process to really be able to shape the outcome of those dollars.鈥�

Nearly 30 years later, with thousands of cases focused squarely on the harms of social media, she is working to build a coalition of groups that can persuade governors, lawmakers, educators and attorneys general to keep the focus on uplifting kids, not filling budget holes. The coming legal settlements, she said, are payback for that harm. 鈥淎nd [when] they pay back in, it needs to go back into the public good.鈥�

社区黑料鈥檚 Greg Toppo recently sat down with Gaines for a wide-ranging conversation on her work and the 鈥済ame-changing鈥� potential of the social media payouts.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

First let’s talk about the tobacco payouts. You were in Missouri at the time. As you look back on that now, what were the mistakes?

The tobacco settlement was the Wild West. I remember we had $20 million that the governor and the legislature had committed, and they were like, “Yes, we’re going to put that towards positive youth development 鈥� and it’s going to be huge!” Back then, that was big dollars for Missouri. And then there was a little budget crisis, and the governor withheld those dollars. It was like, “Oh, sorry.” But that was happening all over the country at that time. There are some states that did a good job of setting tobacco settlement dollars aside and having a real method to how they dispersed them, but for the most part, those dollars went into the general fund and never really tracked in any significant way. 

What about the opioid settlements?

They’ve gotten better, and I think we’ve been really guided by in the opioid settlement, which was like, 鈥淗ere are the 10 things that these dollars are intended to be used for.鈥� And so states have taken that, some of them more seriously than others, as the funds roll out. 

So let’s assign a number, a score of one through 10 to the tobacco settlements in terms of where the money went. 

Writ large, that’s so hard. I mean, anecdotally, because I haven’t done a full research study, my sense is probably three out of 10. States weren’t putting funds towards something that was prevention-oriented or reinvesting in the community. 

I want to make sure I understand what the Children’s Funding Project does. I know what your objective is. I wonder: Do you have any leverage, or is this all just advisory? Are you on the outside looking in, saying, “Hey, governors, you should do this”? Or do you have power to make these things happen?

We have no real hard power in this. What we are attempting to do is go around and get regulations in place. And what we really need is to then replace that with deep investments in young people. We’re narrowing in on the attorneys general who are going to be at the table, because they’re leads among the states in the suits, making sure that they understand that it’s not just a settlement to punish the companies and then wherever those dollars go, so be it. There’s a safety aspect that they’re working on: Protect young people, change the platforms, make sure we’re not having faulty products like we’ve had. 

But then there’s a youth justice component to this too.  And people just haven’t gotten there yet. So I think we’re just ahead, honestly, of where zeitgeist is on this, and when we do get it in front of people, they’re like, “Yes, that’s where the money needs to go.” We’ve got a former attorney general who’s advising us on how the A.G. world works because it’s new to our field.

So no, we are not involved in the suits directly, and that’s intentional. That’s somebody else’s job. Our job, as the people who care about funding for kids, is to focus on making sure that money goes to the right place.

So let’s talk about that. What are the things we should be buying with it?

Spokane, Washington, has this thing that they started out of their schools called . Basically what this buys is some joy and some curiosity and some investment in things for a group of young people that have kind of had a rough decade. It’s not been awesome to be a young person. And so this is to say, “You want to learn to play the trumpet? You want to learn to code? You want to learn to build trails out in the woods? Whatever it is that’s speaking to you as a young person, we want to put an infrastructure in place that actually allows you to go and explore that.鈥� And so they’re doing it in Spokane, which is great. 

You talk about a “rough decade” for young people. It sounds like you want to offer them opportunities that maybe even their predecessors, their parents, didn’t have. 

I will just say this: There are special cases where young people have gotten to do it. I ran youth programs 30 years ago. The program that I ran became one of the very first . And there are people who I hired that work there to this day who are incredibly talented youth workers, who now for generations have been saving young people and really helping them find their calling. And to have young people in relationships with talented adults who know how to do that 鈥� and other talented young people, what we call “near peers,” who can provide that kind of guidance 鈥� is something we’ve never had.

21st Century Community Learning Centers have basically been since years ago. It’s kind of crazy to think that we’ve never invested more than a billion dollars in that as a country.

If you went to an attorney general, and they said, “Just lay it all out for me,” what are the possibilities? Obviously there is a constituency that will say, “Just give the schools more money.” Just make classes smaller, improve buildings, put in HVAC, and on and on and on. Pump money into the system. Do you find yourselves in opposition to that?

They should, just as a matter of course, pay for HVAC systems for our schools, and so using this special pot of money to do that is not going to have the intended impact that we want to have. And given the direct link between the harms related to youth mental health and what we know about investing in prevention and upstream opportunities,  this is a chance to really make a significant investment in those kinds of things. So the coalition that we’re building is really trying to bring together the people not only that are in the comprehensive afterschool funding community, but into sports and play, outdoor education, arts, civic engagement leadership, youth in service types of activities. There’s a bunch of stuff that’s always been underfunded. This is a chance to quadruple down on it.

Quadruple down? 

Well, I’ll just go ahead and admit it’s going to be more than that. 

You’re talking about the harms of social media, and obviously thinking of ways to to remedy that. Who are the people you would work with to make some of these things happen?  

Let me be clear: We are really trying to coalesce any organization. Largely they’re community based organizations. There’s the names that people know: the Boys and Girls Clubs and the Y’s, but there’s also really organically grown, community based organizations that, in many cases, are the most effective at reaching young people that are hard to reach in the places where they are. And those folks have always just done that work and found ways to do it, but have been deeply underfunded. And so if I was the boss of social media litigation, I would say investing in those homegrown, local organizations would be a really powerful thing to do. We’re trying to bring all of those folks to one table, and then there’s going to have to be state-by-state approaches. 

Could you envision a landscape where offering funding to public schools is in opposition to the Girl Scouts or the Campfire Girls or Boys and Girls Clubs?  

Certainly that could happen. But our intent is to make this like what they’ve done in Spokane. That’s superintendent-led. I think the schools are going to have to get that this is an opportunity to really do some things that they get pressured to focus on, when really they have a job to do already and they can’t seem to layer the social-emotional well-being of young people on top of what they’re trying to do. 

I was talking to somebody today about something totally unrelated, and they used the term “human flourishing.” That sounds kind of like what you’re talking about.

Yeah. I mean, listen: With the onset of AI and the way that the world is shifting, I think there’s going to be a huge need that becomes so clear for folks about just the value of being human and how we raise good humans. It’s going to become increasingly important.

You talked about attorneys general. Are there any who you feel are leading the way?

You probably saw [New Mexico Attorney General] , the New Mexico case, which is not actually part of the larger case, . [A jury in March found that Meta had failed to protect young users from child predators on Instagram and Facebook.] It was the first one at the state level out of the gate that has gotten an early verdict. And it was pretty powerful. He was only looking at one set of harms related to child exploitation. So just on that one harm alone, they said was owed. And then if you extrapolate that to all the other harms, it’s significant. Certainly Kentucky’s, A.G., Colorado鈥檚, California鈥檚. But it’s a truly bipartisan group of A.G.s that are leading on this. 

These strike me as not just life-changing numbers but just system-changing numbers. I mean this has a potential to really just change how we even consider what’s possible. 

That’s the point, and that’s, I think, why people get very excited about this as a solution, as a chance to really dream and to get young people excited and engaged. 鈥淕ame-changing鈥� is how we’ve been describing it to the field. And we’ve got to stop thinking about just like, “Let’s fight for those little afterschool dollars that we’ve had all this time.” No, this is about a bigger play.

After nine days of deliberation, a Los Angeles jury found Google and Meta liable for harms stemming from the design of their social media products on Wednesday and ordered them to pay $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who said that Instagram and YouTube caused depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

Meta was 70 percent of damages and YouTube the rest. The amount owed the plaintiff may rise, and the jury will over potential punitive damages for egregious conduct, per The New York Times.

This is the tackling the legal question of whether features of social media, like autoplay, infinite scroll and beauty filters can cause harm to users.

“This momentous verdict shows that tech companies will be held accountable for the harm they cause. These companies have spent years choosing profit over people’s well-being, and now a jury has decided they must pay the price for their actions,鈥� said Maddy Batt, a legal fellow at Tech Justice Project, a law firm specializing in suits against AI chatbots.

The plaintiff, KGM, filed her lawsuit using a pseudonym in 2023. KGM, now 20, says she has been addicted to social media since she was a child. It was one of three cases selected out of thousands as 鈥渂ellwether trials鈥� to test out a new theory of liability.

Batt cautioned that the outcome of this trial doesn鈥檛 mean 鈥渁n automatic legal win鈥� for the thousands of pending cases, as determining causation varies greatly given the circumstances. 鈥淓ach individual plaintiff still does have to show, if they go to trial, that any negative mental health outcomes they personally experienced were linked to social media,鈥� she said.

It is a huge boon to tech accountability advocates to see this success though, Batt said, and could lead to tech companies changing their products because of the amount of money in play to settle cases or pay damages. This jury decision, coupled with a $375 million verdict against Meta announced yesterday, is the first step to achieving that goal.

The New Mexico Attorney General Ra煤l Torrez sued Meta in 2023, alleging the company misled constituents over how safe its platforms are for children. State prosecutors focused specifically on Instagram鈥檚 potential to facilitate the sexual exploitation of kids.

On Tuesday, a jury sided with New Mexico, saying the company also engaged in deceptive trade practices. Meta was ordered to pay $5,000 per violation 鈥� $375 million total. Torrez at a future bench trial, and hopes to compel changes to the platform. Meta said it plans to appeal.

Batt pointed out that this trial is the first time tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have had to make a case and submit to questioning in front of a jury of their peers. (The CEO did not take the stand in the New Mexico case.) Large tech companies have faced a public backlash over the past decade, and much of it has revolved around their products鈥� impact on the mental health of young people.

Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, leaked internal research documents from the company previously known as Facebook showing girls reported their eating disorders worsening after using Instagram. Social media use can prompt girls to compare and criticize their own bodies, and many companies struggle to moderate on their platforms.

Over two-thirds of teenage girls reported using Instagram, more than boys. A quarter each of Black and Latinx teens said they use Instagram and YouTube 鈥渃onstantly鈥� according to a by Pew Research Center.

Google argued that YouTube was not social media, while Meta of KGM鈥檚 anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. Meta鈥檚 lawyers deconstructed KGM鈥檚 home environment, alleging her parents鈥� divorce and treatment by her mother were the root cause of her emotional pain. The companies also argued that it wasn鈥檛 the way their products were designed that caused problems, but rather the specific content seen.

KGM originally named the companies behind Snapchat and Tiktok in the lawsuit, but those parties settled for an undisclosed sum before the trial started. The trial focused on Instagram and Facebook, both Meta products, and YouTube, which is owned by Google.

The burden was on KGM鈥檚 lawyers to prove that Meta and Google were negligent in their design of social media products and show that those same products caused the plaintiff鈥檚 mental health issues. The jury agreed with those arguments.

KGM testified that features like notifications , and she was unable to stop whenever she tried to limit her usage. She said she started her first Instagram account at age 9 and joined YouTube at age 10, even though legally kids aren鈥檛 supposed to have online accounts before they鈥檙e 13. Almost all of her Instagram posts had image filters on them, and KGM said she didn鈥檛 feel bad about her body until she began using the platform.

The tech accountability watchdogs who rallied behind KGM are ecstatic over this win. 鈥淭he era of Big Tech invincibility is over,鈥� said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, in a statement.

For parents who have lost their kids to what many describe as social media-related harms, this is a moment of vindication.

鈥淔or years, families have been told this was a parenting issue, but the jury saw the truth: these companies made deliberate decisions to prioritize growth and profit over kids鈥� safety,鈥� said Shelby Knox, director of online safety campaigns at nonprofit ParentsTogether.

Social media companies have been battling allegations of harm, particularly to kids, for years. Most of the claims are easily dismissed under Section 230, the law that says a platform isn鈥檛 held liable for third-party content it hosts. But these bellwether cases are testing whether the design of products like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are inherently harmful. Plaintiffs have pointed to the impacts of features such as infinite scroll and face filters as harmful regardless of the content being shared.

The case concludes as Congress works to pass a package of internet bills that is but that critics say may lead to the removal of digital and 鈥� a particular concern given the Trump administration鈥檚 policy positions.

In her statement, Haworth at The Tech Oversight Project called on lawmakers to pass the Kids Online Safety Act, one of the most hotly debated pieces of tech legislation in recent years. It has failed to pass the House since its first was introduced in 2022, but now is being considered as part of the aforementioned package.

鈥淚t’s good that people are suing these companies and winning in court to reduce their power and force them to change their policies,鈥� said Evan Greer, director of digital rights nonprofit Fight For The Future, to The 19th. But she鈥檚 concerned how the verdict in KGM鈥檚 case will be used to advocate for laws that she says could threaten free speech online.

Greer pointed to the way activists are using social platforms to monitor abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, advocate for human rights and discuss accustations of sexual abuse against people like Jeffery Epstein. 鈥淲e need policies that address corporate abuse without kneecapping the ability of front-line activists to use social media to change the world,鈥� she said.

Jess Miers, associate professor of law at the University of Akron School of Law, is concerned about the long-term consequences of the verdict. While these cases focus on the way platforms are designed, said in practice, there isn鈥檛 a strong delineation between content and feature design.

鈥淎utoplay is only engaging because of what it plays,鈥� she told The 19th. 鈥淚nfinite scroll only retains users because of what it surfaces.鈥� She pointed out many apps use these kinds of features, but those aren鈥檛 the ones being sued.

Thus, liability tied to design will inevitably trickle down to judgements about content. 鈥淭he only practical way to reduce the risks alleged in these suits is to restrict or suppress categories of content that might later be characterized as harmful or 鈥榓ddictive,鈥欌�� she noted.

And what鈥檚 the content most likely to be labeled as harmful? 鈥淗istory shows they expand to cover disfavored speech鈥攚hether that鈥檚 reproductive health information, gender-affirming care, or speech about policing and immigration enforcement,鈥� she said.

鈥淭he people most likely to be affected are those who already rely on the Internet as a primary space for connection and support,鈥� Miers said 鈥� like disabled people, LGBTQ+ youth or people looking for accurate information on contraception.

was originally reported by Jasmine Mithani of . .

The 鈥渄angerous and untested鈥� chatbot, the mother said, 鈥渁bused and preyed on my son, manipulating him into taking his own life.鈥� It essentially assisted his suicide, the mother alleges, prompting him to isolate from friends and family and at one point even asking if he had a suicide plan, according to the lawsuit.

In its Oct. 29 , the company said the change will go into effect no later than Nov. 25. Character.AI will limit teen users to two hours per day with chatbots before then, ramping it down in the coming weeks.

It also said it will establish its own AI Safety Lab, an independent non-profit 鈥渄edicated to innovating safety alignment for next-generation AI entertainment features.鈥�

To offer perspective on the move and on issues surrounding AI safety, privacy and digital addiction, 社区黑料鈥檚 Greg Toppo spoke with , a Seton Hall University law professor and director of its . Bernstein has also created a school outreach program for students and parents, introducing many for the first time to the idea of 鈥渢echnology overuse.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

An intellectual property lawyer, Bernstein noticed around 2015 or 2016 that 鈥渢hings were changing around me鈥� when it came to technology. 鈥淚 had three small kids, and I realized that I would go to birthday parties 鈥� the kids are not talking to each other. They’re looking at their phones! I’d go to see school plays, and I couldn’t see my kids on the stage because everybody was holding their phones in front of them.鈥�

Likewise, she felt less productive 鈥渂ecause I was constantly texting and emailing instead of focusing.鈥�

But it wasn鈥檛 until whistleblowers began revealing the hidden designs behind so many social media tools that Bernstein considered how she could help herself and others limit their use.

In 2021, the whistleblower , the primary source for The Wall Street Journal鈥檚 series, told congressional lawmakers that her employer鈥檚 products 鈥渉arm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy.鈥� Creating better, safer social media was possible, Haugen said, but Facebook 鈥渋s clearly not going to do so on its own.鈥�

In her testimony, Haugen zeroed in on the social media giant鈥檚 algorithm and designs. In her writing and speaking, Bernstein maintains that tech companies like Facebook 鈥� rebranded as Meta 鈥� manipulate us to keep us online as long as possible, with invisible designs that 鈥渢arget our deepest human vulnerabilities.鈥� For instance, they use a tool called , prominently on display on Facebook and Instagram, in which the page never ends. 鈥淲e just keep scrolling,鈥� she wrote recently. 鈥淭hey took away our stopping cues.鈥�

Similarly, video apps such as YouTube and TikTok rely on , in which one video automatically follows another indefinitely.

In 2023, Bernstein put her findings into a book, . Since then, dozens of state attorneys general and school districts have sued to force social media companies to reform 鈥� and Bernstein says this approach may also help parents and schools battle the growing threat of AI companion bots. 

Late last month, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators to make AI companions off-limits to minors. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo, a co-sponsor, said more than 70% of kids now use them. 鈥淐hatbots develop relationships with kids using fake empathy and are encouraging suicide,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淲e in Congress have a moral duty to enact bright-line rules to prevent further harm from this new technology.鈥�

The move comes weeks after the said it was investigating seven chatbot developers, saying it was looking into 鈥渉ow these firms measure, test and monitor potentially negative impacts of this technology on children and teens.鈥�

In her conversation with 社区黑料, Bernstein said the FTC probe amounts to 鈥渁nother pressure point鈥� that may help change how tech companies operate. 鈥淏ut it’s not just the FTC. It’s the lawsuits, and it’s bad PR that comes from the lawsuits, and hopefully there’ll be regulation. Litigation is expensive. Investors might not want to invest in these new products because there’s risk.鈥�

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

The obvious interest we have in this is that we’re seeing Character.AI鈥檚 new policy, which limits access to its chatbot companions to users 18 or older. I imagine folks like you would say it’s only the first step.

Just the fact that they are taking some precautions means hopefully some kids will not be exposed to what’s been happening 鈥� convincing them to kill themselves, convincing them to not talk to their parents, to stay away from their friends. That’s a good thing. 

On the other hand?

I’ve researched how tech companies, especially Meta and other companies, have been behaving for years. So I’m a bit suspicious, because we tend to see these kinds of moves when they’re threatened legally. So it’s not so surprising that it’s happening. They’re under pressure.

In my mind, there are two questions: First of all, what will this look like exactly? In the past, for example, you would see Meta, every time there’s a big privacy breach, they would apologize and say, “We’re fixing it,” and they’ll fix something small and not fix the big thing. So what are they really doing? What kind of age verification mechanisms are they going to use? Secondly, they said they’re creating some space for teens. What is this going to look like? We don’t know. And I believe that until there’s real regulation at stake, we can’t be sure that they will take real precautions. 

I read a earlier this year in which you used the phrase “collective legal action,” saying that this is what’s needed to exert pressure on tech companies to change their designs, which trap users into 鈥渙veruse.鈥� That’s a fairly recent development, correct?

At the beginning, the people who were writing on this were mostly psychologists. Parents thought it was their own fault. The idea was, “Let me just fix my habits.” It’s self-help. The books that came before me were mostly talking about self-help methods. And when I was thinking about collective action, I realized: Parents can鈥檛 really change things by themselves, because you can’t isolate your kid and not give them a cell phone, not give them social media. It becomes an endless fight. And so I thought this has to be changed through collective action, through pressure 鈥� through governmental pressure, litigation. 

Jonathan Haidt’s book talks about collective action through parents doing things together in order to not have your kid be the only one who does not have social media or a phone. The idea is that it’s not our fault. It has to be done differently.

And to your point, a lot of this is by design, whether it’s social media or games or AI companions. By design, they’re meant to keep you there, keep you in place, keep you engaged. That’s something that, until recently, was not on a lot of people’s radar.

It took after to come out and explain how it works, to understand it as a business model. There’s no accident. We’re getting these products for free: Gmail for free, Facebook for free. We are paying with our time and our data. They collect data on us in order to target advertising 鈥� that’s how they make money. And they need us online for as long as possible so they can collect the data 鈥� and also so we will see the ads. So they need to find ways to keep us online. And there are different mechanisms like the infinite scroll. And they come up with new ones. AI companions have new addictive mechanisms: the way that they , they always flatter you. For kids it’s even more addictive, but even for adults it鈥檚, “You’re always doing a great job.”

It’s meant to keep you talking, meant to keep you engaged. You focus a lot on games and social media, but it strikes me that AI companions make those things seem quaint in terms of their addictive qualities, or the potential for real peril.

I agree with you. If you have a spectrum where social media is addictive 鈥� people spend many hours online, and they’re not interacting face-to-face 鈥� that’s an issue. And you see this with AI companions too. But what’s concerning about AI companions is that it’s much worse for kids. If you think about it, if you’re a kid and you go to middle school, kids are not nice. It’s much nicer to chat with somebody who’s always nice to you. Falling in love and getting your heart broken is not fun. There are many websites that just offer girlfriends that cater to you. So for me, the scariest thing is that kids will just never really develop the skills to have these relationships. And some adults may also stop preferring them.

About a year ago, I wrote a piece in which I talked to a college student, maybe 19 or 20 years old, who admitted that essentially he had outsourced advice about his romantic life to ChatGPT 鈥� he had a girlfriend, and whenever they had a fight or disagreement, he would excuse himself, go into the bathroom and ask ChatGPT what he should be doing. I can see that both ways: On the one hand, it just seems incredible. On the other hand, I can see where he’s basically looking for good advice. He’s looking for guidance. What do you make of that?

People say you can get advice, and you can practice your dating skills. I’ll give you something that happened to me, which is on a different scale: I was traveling abroad, and I was in this restaurant, and the menu was in a different language. So what did I do? I took a picture of the menu and uploaded it to ChatGPT and got it translated to English. While I was doing it, a young man came up to my partner and asked to translate. So what happened? I was already busy looking at my phone because I had a translation. My partner was speaking to this young man who was very happy to speak, and they were having a great conversation. 

That’s an example of the kind of things we’re giving up. This guy you wrote about, instead of going to the bathroom, maybe could have asked a friend, developed a deeper relationship with a friend. Maybe they would share experiences. But he gets used to getting the immediate answer from somebody else, and you didn’t develop these relationships. 

We miss out on the possibility of having a human interaction. 

Yes.

In its announcement, Character.AI actually apologized to its younger users, saying that many of them had told the company how important these characters had become to them. And I’ve heard that before. I wonder: How do we as adults start to think about the flip side of this, that it’s difficult for young people to tear themselves away from these things they’ve created? Do you have any sympathy for that?

I have concern, actually, because these kids, sometimes they kill themselves for these bots. So I am concerned about what will happen to kids who are very attached when these bots are suddenly gone. And you hear news stories even of adults who suddenly lost characters they were attached to. It’s a bit like how do you get people who are addicted off the addiction when you suddenly cut them off? These are things we’ve never even thought of.

Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you think is an important piece of this?

An important piece of this is that you don’t yet have every teen, every kid, attached to an AI companion. So there’s a window of opportunity to create change. Social media is much more difficult, because by the time we realized how bad it was, everybody was on social media. The money interests were so big that they would fight every law in court. So it’s really important to move fast and also understand that Character.AI is a small part of the problem. Because it’s not just these specialized websites like Character.AI. It’s ChatGPT 鈥� one of the last lawsuits was . The AI bots in ChatGPT are becoming more human, so it’s important that any action is against these bots, against the type of characteristics they have and to regulate how they behave. Just getting rid of Character.AI is not going to solve the problem.

A video illustrates a cartoon Brachiosaurus trudging along. The dinosaur has bright colors and a friendly voice carefully designed to draw the attention of a toddler. As the green leaf-eater goes to speak, a banner ad floats across the screen.

Experts caution that this experience can distract the child. 鈥淭here’s advertising embedded into the video, or at the bottom of the video, or the side,鈥� said Kaitlin Tiches, a medical librarian at Boston Children Hospital鈥檚 Digital Wellness Lab. That can be especially problematic if the ad isn鈥檛 developmentally appropriate for the viewer. 

The tough choice about whether to allow babies and children to consume content online is nothing new. Neither is that comes with it for many parents who opt to allow their little ones to access digital media, from the American Academy of Pediatrics that suggests to avoid it for babies under 18-months-old and to limit it for kids under age 5.

At a time when kids are gaining access to digital devices earlier 鈥� many of them as infants or toddlers 鈥� and cuts to public broadcasting have put an end to many of the high-quality programs American children have been raised on for generations, the decision has become more complicated.

, which comes with its own unique blend of allure for parents and children has become a staple in many homes. The streaming site is seeing a surge in popularity, especially among families with children under 2, even though child development experts have expressed about the use of the platform for young children.

According to a recent published by Pew Research Center, 62% of toddlers ages 2 and under watch YouTube, a significant spike from the 45% reported in 2020. There was also an uptick in toddlers who watched YouTube daily, rising from 24% in 2020 to 35% in 2025. 

鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a very striking rise,鈥� said Colleen McClain, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a great example of a theme from our report, which is that tech starts young.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

What to Know Before Letting Kids Hit Play on YouTube

The YouTube boost arrives as concerns continue to swirl about the site. Tiches warned of unfettered advertising and the company鈥檚 focus on profit over education. She pointed out that traditional children鈥檚 media has clear parameters around advertising  鈥� the episode plays, then cuts to commercial break. But on YouTube, prevalent banner ads appear throughout the screen, with other ads interjecting in the middle of an episode. That children鈥檚 learning. 

鈥淚 think because YouTube creators are monetized, there鈥檚 a lot of pressure to successfully create videos, and with the young children on these platforms, it鈥檚 a big market,鈥� Tiches said. 鈥淎ds might be very long and again, if parents are not watching with their children, then the children might not know how to skip them. Then, it鈥檚 minutes of an ad that may not be appropriate for very young children.鈥�

While creators can mark whether their video is child-friendly, the ads 鈥� and videos themselves 鈥� may not be developmentally appropriate. A found that only 19% of the videos infants and toddlers watched on YouTube were age appropriate. That report was based on data about young kids and YouTube by Common Sense Media, which revealed that roughly one-fifth of advertisements contained age-inappropriate content including violence, drugs and sexual content. About one-quarter of ads were child-appropriate, with most (74%) deemed 鈥渘eutral,鈥� for companies like Volvo, State Farm Insurance and Casper Sleep Inc.聽

But even those can influence children on consumerism, which may not be the intended point of watching content. 

Curation and quality control are important, experts said. Shortly after the Common Sense report came out, its lead author, Jenny Radesky, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Michigan , 鈥淵ouTube is kids’ favorite playground right now.鈥� She added: 鈥淲e have to ask whether it’s being maintained in the right ways, if the equipment is safe and giving kids freedom to explore and have positive experiences? Or are they being steered towards experiences that benefit marketers and brands, but don’t support their developmental growth?”

Many entities, such as PBS, have their for children鈥檚 programming, thanks to the , a law that requires broadcast television to air a dedicated amount of educational content and limited advertising during children鈥檚 programs. Streaming services like YouTube do not have to adhere to those rules. YouTube鈥檚 asks publishing for a primary audience of children to mark their content as 鈥淢ade for Kids鈥� and to ensure they鈥檙e 鈥渃omplying with the Children鈥檚 Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and other applicable laws.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

鈥淭he content I鈥檓 viewing on Netflix or Disney has been selected by that company; if they say it’s child-focused, depending on the company, I can have a little more reasonable awareness or trust,鈥� said Kate Blocker, director of research and programs at Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. 

鈥淚 could post a video and say it’s educational, but what does it mean?鈥� Tiches added. 鈥淭here鈥檚 not necessarily a lot of oversight into what is considered truly educational, or [ensuring] the value of it is rooted in early education practices.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Blocker said some parents, while well aware of issues on social media sites, may view YouTube as a separate entity akin to watching traditional television or a streaming service. But Blocker points out the platform more closely mimics the former, with the ability to comment on videos, have an auto-play feature and deliver suggested content driven by algorithms. 

鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of national dialogue and awareness building around social media and its particular harms, but generally speaking I don’t think people connect that thought to YouTube,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e thinking of Instagram and TikToks and teens  鈥� [but] not making the same connection to the content on YouTube.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Some parents are somewhat cognizant of limiting their children鈥檚 screen time, at the very least. According to the Pew report, roughly one-quarter of parents said that they believe they can 鈥渄o more鈥� to limit their toddler鈥檚 screen time access. As the child gets older, that share becomes almost half: 47% of parents believe they can do better limiting their 8- to 12-year-old鈥檚 screen time. 

鈥淚 have a 3-year-old, and we don鈥檛 let her use a phone or tablet or anything,鈥� one parent said in a focus group conducted by Pew in March. The parent added that they let their 3 year old use a laptop for a week鈥檚 subscription to an educational platform. 鈥淚t got me thinking there probably are opportunities to use technology as an educational tool 鈥� but I鈥檓 so scared about the consequences 鈥� that I鈥檓 probably hesitant to use it at all.鈥�

The Pew report highlighted that children found YouTube content educational and entertaining, but the research did not delve into why parents turn toward the platform. The screen time, Pew鈥檚 McClain said, could be driven, in part, by parents simply battling with high stress levels. 

鈥淔rom qualitative research, we鈥檙e hearing more and more that it’s really hard; parents are struggling,鈥� Blocker said. 鈥淪ometimes you need something to keep your little one still, to do the dishes or help your older one with homework.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Some may turn toward YouTube because of its easy accessibility across various devices. Others may be drawn to its free model at a time when the cost of cable subscriptions and streaming service continue to rise. And with funding for public media 鈥� most notably PBS 鈥� in recent months, families are left with less reliable options for high-quality children鈥檚 programming.  

鈥淩egardless of the platform, it can feel overwhelming,鈥� Tiches said. But families might  have an easier time figuring out whether programs on a more traditional network, like PBS, have had input from educational or developmental experts, versus on YouTube, where parents have to search for information about the creator, Tiches added.

How Parents Can Help Kids Stream Smarter

Experts acknowledge that it is not feasible to expect parents to avoid screen time entirely. from The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages use of screens for babies under 18 months old and recommends that parents who want to introduce digital media to their 18- to 24-months old toddlers do so by co-viewing high-quality programs. According to the Pew report, most of them are: 74% of parents of kids age 12 and under watch YouTube with their children, and more than 90% of parents of kids 5 and under do. 

鈥淚 think it speaks to the way parents are navigating all this technology for their kids,鈥� McClain said. 鈥淧arents are really navigating these decisions on a daily basis, dealing with a lot of emotions around them and trying to do the best for their kids.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

If watching together is not possible, Blocker suggests that having the content on a large screen 鈥� not a small screen plugged in with headphones 鈥� is preferred, so the parent is still able to hear the content. 

Tiches added that parents can look into who is making the content their children are consuming, and at the very least, should look at the type of content that it is. If a video is fast-paced, consider finding something more calming, especially for kids under 2.  

鈥淵ou can tell sometimes from the title if there are shapes, colors, numbers, letters 鈥� that鈥檚 going to be a lot of information, but probably not as beneficially educational,鈥� she said. 鈥淰ersus really focusing on circles, for example, or words that start with the letter 鈥楢.鈥欌��

Beyond what parents can do though, there is a push for more legislation from both the federal government and technology companies. 

鈥淧arents don鈥檛 want to do this alone,鈥� McClain said. 鈥淥ne of the things that stand out in our work is [that] parents are people: they work, they struggle with their own screen time. And that, combined with [the fact that] they want technology companies to do more, really paints a picture.鈥�

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin filed a Monday against Google, YouTube and their parent companies, accusing the digital behemoths of intentionally targeting children with addictive and harmful content.

The complaint, filed in Phillips County Circuit Court, is the latest in state officials鈥� ongoing efforts to regulate social media鈥檚 impact on minors, such as a 2023 currently .

Griffin鈥檚 40-page suit alleges that YouTube 鈥渁mplifies harmful material, doses users with dopamine hits, and drives youth engagement and advertising revenue鈥� through its many programs, including the youth-oriented YouTube Kids. The platform takes advantage of the 鈥渦ndeveloped capacity for self-regulation鈥� in minors鈥� still-developing brains, making them 鈥減articularly vulnerable to chasing the stimuli of social media, e.g. YouTube notifications and 鈥榣ikes,鈥欌�� the complaint states.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

鈥淵ouTube鈥檚 addictive power over Arkansas youth is devastating and has resulted in the State of Arkansas being forced to pour millions of dollars into expanding mental health and other services for young people living here,鈥� the complaint states.

Griffin emphasized during a news conference Monday morning that he meant to discuss addiction 鈥渋n a clinical way, not in a colloquial way.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檙e not talking about it in the loose way that you may say, 鈥楾hat food is so good I鈥檓 addicted to it.鈥� 鈥� It is something more sinister than that,鈥� Griffin said.

Google is the managing member of YouTube. The other two defendants are Google鈥檚 parent company, XXVI Holdings, and its parent company, Alphabet Inc.

In addition to a jury trial and monetary damages, Griffin asks the court to order the defendants 鈥渢o disgorge and forfeit all profits鈥� that resulted from their alleged misdeeds and 鈥渢o fund prevention education and treatment for excessive and problematic use of social media.鈥�

Griffin鈥檚 complaint accuses the defendants of violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which generates fines of up to $10,000 per violation.

鈥淒efendants led users and the parents of young users to believe their social media platforms were safe for use by young people, including through the release of the YouTube Kids product,鈥� the complaint states.

The complaint also accuses the companies of unjust enrichment for 鈥渕onetiz[ing] the screen time of Arkansas鈥� citizens鈥� and of being a public nuisance under state law for creating 鈥渁 mental health crisis.鈥�

Other state action

Since taking office last year, Griffin and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders have both attributed mental health problems among children, such as depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal ideation, to frequent social media use.

Sanders and Education Secretary Jacob Oliva have limiting students鈥� use of cell phones in schools, and lawmakers have to school districts for the resources to lock up students鈥� devices during class time.

Earlier this month, Griffin and 41 other attorneys general signed a letter to federal lawmakers asking them to on 鈥渁ll algorithm-driven social media platforms鈥� citing the risk of addiction.

Griffin is the sole plaintiff in Monday鈥檚 complaint against YouTube. He told reporters that 鈥渢he lack of progress and the pace鈥� of lawsuits with multiple attorneys general as plaintiffs frustrates him and he hopes for a quick resolution.

He is also the sole plaintiff in a March 2023 lawsuit against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, in Cleburne County Circuit Court. Similarly to Monday鈥檚 lawsuit, last year鈥檚 complaint accuses the defendants of targeting minors with harmful content, profiting from engagement with said content and deceiving users into believing the platform is safe.

A circuit judge denied TikTok鈥檚 motion to dismiss the case in May, and the case is set to go to trial in September 2025, according to court documents.

When asked why his office has filed its complaints in different counties statewide, Griffin said he had 鈥渋ndividual reasons鈥� for doing so, but revealing them 鈥渨ould not be smart in litigation.鈥�

The 2023 social media age verification law, , would require parental permission for minors to access certain websites, but YouTube is one of the exceptions.

Attorneys for NetChoice, the nonprofit trade association for large tech companies that brought the lawsuit, said the law was not narrowly tailored. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks agreed in his order issuing a preliminary injunction, while acknowledging the importance of protecting minors online.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on and .

At least eleven school districts, one county, and one California county system that oversees 23 smaller districts have filed suits this year, representing roughly 469,000 students. 

Two others in Arizona are considering their own complaints, one superintendent told 社区黑料. Eleven districts in voted to pursue similar litigation, as did . Many others across the country are on the verge of doing the same, according to a lawyer representing a New Jersey district.

鈥淪chools, states, and Americans across the country are rightly pushing back against Big Tech putting profits over kids鈥� safety online,鈥� Sen. Richard Blumenthal, co-sponsor of the , bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act, told 社区黑料. 鈥淭hese efforts, proliferated by harrowing stories from families amid a worsening youth mental health crisis, underscore the urgency for Congress to act.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Algorithms and platform design have 鈥渆xploited the vulnerable brains of youth, hooking tens of millions of students across the country into positive feedback loops of excessive use and abuse of Defendants鈥� social media platforms,鈥� Seattle Public Schools claimed in the first suit filed this January.

Districts in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Jersey, and , , as well as say tech companies intentionally , exacerbating depression, anxiety, tech addiction and self-harm, straining learning and district finances. 

But the legal fight, whether tried or settled, will not be easy, outside counsel and at least one district leader said. 

鈥淲e don’t think that this is a slam dunk case. We think it’s going to be an uphill battle. But our board and I believe that this is in the best interest of our students to do this,鈥� said Andi Fourlis, superintendent of Arizona鈥檚 largest district, Mesa Public Schools. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about making the case that we need to do better for our kids.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Just how badly Mesa鈥檚 teens are hurting is laid out in detail in court filings: More than a third are chronically absent, 3,500 more were involved in disciplinary incidents in 2021-22 than in 2019-20 and the district has seen a 鈥渟urge鈥� in suicidal ideation and anxiety. 

Buried in the 111-page lawsuit, a high school senior鈥檚 video essay illustrates the painful impacts of social media addiction: risky or self-destructive behavior, disconnection from friends.

Simultaneously, and lawmakers are proposing bills to make platforms safer. Senate are underway, featuring parents whose children died by suicide. TikTok鈥檚 CEO this month to address concerns about exposure to harmful content. President Joe Biden flagged 鈥�,鈥� in his last State of the Union Address.

Both legislative and legal efforts are after similar goals: changing the algorithms and product design believed to be hurting and kids. Through lawsuits, districts also seek financial compensation for the increased mental health services and training they鈥檝e 鈥溾�� to establish. 

鈥淭he harms caused by social media companies have impacted the districts鈥� ability to carry out their core mission of providing education. The expenditures are not sustainable and divert resources from classroom instruction and other programs,鈥� said Michael Innes, partner with Carella Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, a firm representing New Jersey schools.

Previous complaints against opioid and e-cigarette companies, which levied public nuisance and negligence claims as districts鈥� social media filings do, resulted in multimillion dollar settlements. 

But some legal experts say there鈥檚 a key distinction in this case: Big Tech companies aren鈥檛 the ones producing content on these platforms, individuals are. Companies have some hefty . 

鈥淪chool districts are not in the business of suing people 鈥� the threshold for initiating litigation is very high,鈥� said Dean Kawamoto, a lawyer for Keller Rohrback, the Seattle-based firm representing four districts, and thousands of others in Juul litigation. 

鈥淚 do think it says something that you’ve got a group of schools that have filed now, and I think more are going to join them,鈥� Kawamoto added. 

Some outside counsel are . 

鈥淚 think there are questions about whether the litigation system is even a coherent way to go about this,鈥� First Amendment scholar and Harvard Law professor Rebecca Tushnet told 社区黑料. 鈥淚t’s very hard to use individual litigation to get systemic change, excepting in particular circumstances.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The exceptions, she added, have clear visions and specific outcomes, like requiring a doctor on-call for safer prison conditions. Those kinds of metrics are difficult to name when it comes to algorithms and mental health. 

What precedent (or lack thereof) tells us

Social media companies鈥� lawyers are likely to assert free speech protections early and often, including in initial motions to dismiss.

鈥淭he conventional wisdom is that if motions to dismiss are denied in cases like this, [companies] are much more likely to settle 鈥� reality is actually a little more mixed,鈥� Tushnet said, adding if the claims come after business models, companies fight harder. 

An added challenge is proving causal harm 鈥� that social media companies have caused student depression, anxiety, eating disorders or self-harm. The link is one that neuroscientists and researchers are , though experts say there鈥檚 an urgent need. 

鈥淭his is a watershed moment where schools can really roll up their sleeves and do something because 鈥� not that they haven’t been in the past 鈥� but because it’s so obvious. It’s right in front of them. It’s impacting students鈥� education,鈥� said Jerry Barone, chief clinical officer at Effective School Solutions, which brings mental health care to schools. 

About 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse; 17% of teen girls say it makes eating disorders worse, according to Meta鈥檚 leaked internal research, first revealed in a via .

Even if districts are able to provide proof, they may not ever see a judgment made. 

Public nuisance claims in tobacco and opioid mass torts were more successful in 鈥渋nducing settlements, rather than in courthouse outcomes,鈥� according to Robert Rabin, tort expert and professor at Stanford University. 

While he鈥檚 not 鈥渄ismissive鈥� of districts鈥� efforts, 鈥渢he precedents don鈥檛 supply clear-cut support for the claims here.鈥濃��

The interim

As lawyers work out the details, students are left in the balance. Some are skeptical the suits will amount to anything at all, at least in their adolescence. 

鈥淲hy do you guys waste so much time on these useless things that you know get nowhere, when you can do it with things that you know will get somewhere?鈥� said Angela Ituarte, a sophomore at a Seattle high school. 

Many young people interviewed by 社区黑料 described their social media use like a double-edged sword: affirming, a place where they learned about mental health or found community, particularly for queer students of color; and simultaneously dangerous, a place where they connected with adults when they were 14 and saw dangerous diets promoted.

Social media, Ituarte said, makes it seem like self-harm and disordered eating, 鈥渁re the solution to everything. And it’s hard to get that out of those algorithms 鈥� even if you block the accounts or say you’re not interested it still keeps popping up. Usually it’s when things are bad, too.鈥�

In a late February letter to senators, Meta touted a promising initiative to on one for extended periods. Only 1 in 5 teens actually moved to a new topic during a weeklong trial. 

To curb cyberbullying, users now get warnings for potentially offensive comments. People only edit or delete their message 50% of the time, according to the company鈥檚 responses to Senate inquiries. 

Meta, YouTube and Google did not respond to requests for comment. TikTok told 社区黑料 they cannot comment on ongoing litigation. The company has just started requiring users who say they are under 18 to enter a password after scrolling for an hour.

In a statement to 社区黑料, Snap said they 鈥渁re constantly evaluating how we continue to make our platform safer.鈥� Snap has partnered with mental health organizations to launch an in-app support system for users who may be experiencing a crisis, and acknowledged that the work may never be done. 

The process has only just begun. If the suits move to trial, some districts will be chosen as bellwethers to represent the many plaintiffs, tasked with regularly contributing to a lengthy trial. 

Still, there鈥檚 no doubt in Fourlis鈥檚 mind. 

鈥淪ometimes you have to be the first to step forward to take a bold leap so that others can follow,鈥� she said. 鈥淏eing the superintendent of the largest school district in Arizona, what we do often sets precedents, and I have to be very strategic about that responsibility.鈥�

Disclosure: Campbell Brown, Meta鈥檚 vice president of media partnerships, is a co-founder and member of the board of directors of 社区黑料. She played no role in the editing of this article.

鈥淔or me, I really like corn,鈥� Tariq said in an August now watched over 5 million times on YouTube. It鈥檚 鈥渁 big lump with knobs鈥� and 鈥渉as the juice,鈥� he explained. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 imagine a more beautiful thing.鈥�

Since then, the maize craze has reached seemingly every corner of the internet. A made by Michael Gregory, a creator behind several other viral mashups like the song, has been played 73 million times on TikTok and used in over a million other videos. Brands such as , and have referenced the clip in their marketing. And Tariq, a New York City second grader, was officially named South Dakota鈥檚 鈥溾�� in early September.

In the original video, holding the microphone for 鈥淐orn Kid鈥� and asking questions was Julian Shapiro-Barnum, 23-year-old creator of the internet show , which 2.4 million Instagram users follow. Since April 2021, he has interviewed hundreds of young kids across NYC about everything from the meaning of life to peeing their pants 鈥� and countless other conversation starters in between, like fake mustaches, drones and Komodo dragons. 

Across those many exchanges in parks and playgrounds, Shapiro-Barnum has developed an interviewing style that allows his guests to share their authentic, very often hilarious selves and brings viewers into the wonderful world of being a kid.

鈥淚 don’t baby the kids and I don’t talk down to them. And I think that really does wonders,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t really empowers kids to open up and grow and test ideas.鈥�

社区黑料 spoke with the show鈥檚 host over Zoom to hear what it鈥檚 like being online famous and find out what鈥檚 popping on the corn beat. He also shared how his unconventional family background shaped who he is today and what it meant to him to find out his videos are now being used to train young pediatricians.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

社区黑料: What originally inspired Recess Therapy?

Julian Shapiro-Barnum: I’d been doing on-the-street content for a couple years by the time I started Recess Therapy. I was really interested in the idea of talking to real people. 鈥� One of my first shows was , which was a democratized late night talk show. I鈥檇 sit on a corner with tables and chairs and whoever walked up was the guest.

By spring 2021, I had been playing around with these concepts for a while. I鈥檇 always been interested in interviewing kids. I was doing online school at the time (Shapiro-Barnum graduated from Boston University鈥檚 College of Fine Arts in 2021) and I鈥檇 do homework at the playground or something and see these kids playing around having so much fun. And I was always like, 鈥淗ow do they do it? How do they stay positive during all this?鈥�

For a while, I was thinking about interviewing them about happiness and how they stay happy and eventually I did it. And it was immediately gold because they’re just so honest and authentic and sweet and funny all at the same time. And I was like, this might be something special.

There’s a lightness to the videos. What is it about how kids see the world that’s so fun and joyous?

Kids look at the world through a much less biased scope. I think a lot of their opinions are their own. 鈥� They’re not holding back about their own thoughts. They’re not trying to say the right thing 鈥� at least until they’re, like, 7. I feel like the interviews are laced with such honesty. You don鈥檛 really see that in adults and older kids. They鈥檙e not judging themselves.

How would you describe your technique as an interviewer?

I used to come prepared with a lot of questions. At this point, I come prepared with a lot of loose ideas and I really try to find what they’re most excited about. Once I find that, I just follow their joy and their interest. My job really comes in trying to find a way to make them feel comfortable and excited. And then, you know, playing until we find the thing that really is tantalizing for them to talk about for maybe 10 minutes.

One of the things I love about the videos is you validate so much of what kids say. Maybe they’re like, 鈥淚t sucked when I dropped my ice cream on the ground.鈥� And you’re like, 鈥淵ou’re right, that does suck.鈥� How can adults better connect with kids and validate how they see the world?

I think what adults can do is just give them the space to feel the full expanse of their emotions, you know, let them tire themselves out. A lot of times adults try to make kids fit into the box or mode that they’re in. And so often, I find that they flourish and have so much more fun when they’re given their own space to run on their own energy. 

Also, I feel like a lot of adults don’t give kids the ability to have a full true conversation. So often, I’m told that people like that I don’t baby the kids, and I don’t talk down to them. And I think that really does wonders. It’s a very simple thing that one can do, but I think it really empowers kids to open up and grow and test ideas.

Are there any specific phrases or responses that you find really fruitful?

A lot of times when we’re talking about something, before I move on, I ask, 鈥淚s there anything else you want to say about that before we go?鈥� And so often, there is. I might be done and I move on to something else, but they’re still thinking about the last thing. 

I also like to start my interviews by saying, 鈥淚s there anything you want to start by talking about?鈥� Letting them bring whatever they’re toying with before I bring them to my conversation. I didn’t used to do that, I used to say, 鈥榃hat’s up?鈥� Which really doesn’t work. 

I’ve wanted to ask how you find people to interview. Do you show up at a park and ask around?

My team and I, we show up and we really don’t discriminate. Anyone who walks by we offer the opportunity for an interview. We found that casting the widest net possible is the best strategy because so often, the kid that I think might be too shy, or the kid that I think looks perfect and is super boisterous is not the one that is going to be [best on camera]. I have no perception of it. Often, the really quiet kid is the one who has the most to say. I’m very outgoing. So I’m attracted to high energy, but that’s not everyone.

That’s so interesting. In some ways, that could also be a lesson to educators about how to treat kids in a classroom.

Definitely. I think giving everybody the same space does a lot.

To bring it to Tariq, the 鈥淐orn Kid鈥� who has been our biggest video to date, I don’t know if out of 100 kids if he would be my first choice of who I thought would be the funniest, craziest, but he looked really sweet. I really wanted to talk to him. And, you know, he’s amazing. But I wouldn’t have known, you know?

When you made that video, you must have known it was pretty great. But did you expect it to go viral like it did?

Oh, I couldn’t have known. I loved it, it was a great video, but I love so many of the videos that we make. But this one has bewitched the world in such a special way. People just respond so well to his true honest positivity about something that isn’t grand. He’s hyping up something very sweet and small. And I think that’s very special and unique.

I’ve seen a bunch of spinoffs of it, obviously. What are one or two of your favorite pieces of content that have come about because of that video?

I mean, the Gregory Brothers, It鈥檚 Corn song reigns supreme in my mind. At this point, I’ve worked with them and I really like them. I think they deserve a lot of credit for making this as big as it got. Their song is the song that has created all the spinoff songs. 

Also, someone did a club remix at a rave. That was pretty funny. I liked that. There’s, like, hundreds of people moshing to It鈥檚 Corn. It’s crazy.

That’s awesome. So the video has been watched by millions of people, the remix listened to by millions of people. Tariq, I saw, is the corn ambassador of South Dakota. What have been the impacts of his fame for his family? I did see some of the proceeds from the remix on Spotify went to his family.

Yeah, I mean, he’s making money off of Spotify. He was a in The New York Times [last week]. It’s a good article. I try not to speak on behalf of Jessica and Tariq, but the article really speaks to the ways this opportunity has been beneficial to their family. 

I think they’ve had a lot of fun getting to go places for free. We just went to the Empire State Building together and got an amazing tour. Since the video a lot of companies and people have really welcomed them places, which has been really cool.

Other than It’s Corn, what are your top five favorite videos that you’ve done?

Oh my gosh, there’s so many. I feel really connected to all the kids. Some I’ve had on multiple times and I have a relationship with them and their families. 

But I guess I can give simple answers: 

2. Sloane is great talking about  
3. A , such a good clip
4. Dillon, the , is always a classic recess therapy clip 
5. The

Was there a point where it went from, 鈥淥K, this is something I’m doing for fun鈥� to 鈥淭his strikes a chord and resonates with people?鈥�

The first time I did the in June 2021 (interviewing kids at New York City鈥檚 annual parade), the feedback was just so positive. So many people were saying how it meant something to them. And I hadn’t even been doing it very long at that point. I get so many sweet comments from people all the time. I think the show does mean a lot to a lot of people, which is very special and I genuinely appreciate (it) and makes me want to keep doing it. 

I think the first time anyone ever recognized me on the street was like September a year ago, probably. And I was like, 鈥淥h, whoa, people have seen the show and know what I look like.鈥� It’s funny that to some people I’m, like, an internet celebrity. It’s just a weird concept.

What’s the [viewer] note that most sticks with you?

Maybe eight months ago, I got a message from a children’s hospital that they were showing the videos to young doctors to teach how to talk to kids. I was like, 鈥淥h my gosh, you’re using my video for professionals.鈥� Whenever somebody like a child therapist or like a teacher or a doctor reached out and was like, 鈥淗ey, this really helped me with what I do,鈥� it means a lot to me. I went to acting school, I did comedy improv. I didn’t go to school to do any of these things. It means a lot that people are learning and using my stuff to make people happy. 

Can you tell me a little bit about your family background? I know that you come from an unconventional family. How has that shaped you?

I have a very large family. I have five gay parents, three moms and two dads. Since I had so many adults in my life raising me, I was never talked down to in the same way. I had a lot of adults in my life I was friends with and who looked out for me and taught me things. The traditional power structure and dynamics weren’t there. 

I’ve definitely brought that into my interviews and my interview technique and the way that I work with kids. Just bringing them that respect and, like I said, not talking down to them. Because I wasn’t, and it meant so much to me when I was a kid. I like to bring that into my interviews.

How do you describe Recess Therapy to older relatives?

Well, they all know about it. My grandpa isn’t on Instagram or anything, but we鈥檝e been on TV a couple of times for news spots and he always gets very excited. I say it’s an online, on-the-street kids interview show where I talk to kids [ages] 2 to 8 about things as big as the meaning of life to as silly as peeing your pants.

You’ve been in The New York Times, you’ve been on ABC, what鈥檚 something about yourself you’ve never told the media? 

I don’t think I’ve ever said this, but 9 out of 10 mornings. I have two Eggo waffles toasted with peanut butter and jelly and a glass of 2% milk.

Sandwiched? 

Open face waffles with PB&J. jelly and the peanut butter brand changes. 

You can include that I鈥檝e never said that. That鈥檚 my weird thing.

And last, what’s next? Where do you go from here?

I would love to bring the show to other places. I want to travel with it. I want to bring it to TV. I’m a comedian and actor and I’m hoping to have careers in those fields as well. But right now, I’m just really focusing on the show and making fun content and having great conversations and letting the kids show me what I should do next. 

By now, you probably know how it goes.

In an August watched over 5 million times on YouTube, Tariq, better known as 鈥淐orn Kid,鈥� describes his favorite starchy vegetable: It鈥檚 鈥渁 big lump with knobs鈥� and 鈥渉as the juice,鈥� he explained. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 imagine a more beautiful thing.鈥�

Maybe you鈥檝e also heard the song. A made by Michael Gregory, a creator behind several other viral mashups like the song, has been played 73 million times on TikTok and used in over a million other videos.

But before 鈥淐orn Kid鈥� took over the internet, the mastermind behind the mega-hit, Julian Shapiro-Barnum, spent more than a year conducting on-the-street interviews with hundreds of other 鈥� dare we say, equally adorable 鈥� kids across New York City. In the short clips, little ones speak about every topic from the meaning of life to peeing your pants, sharing their authentic, often-hilarious selves.

The 23-year-old creator launched his internet show in early 2021. The conversations struck a chord with viewers who, during the depths of a global pandemic, were in sore need of uplifting content. 

By the beginning of 2022, the series had already amassed over 1 million followers on Instagram and earned a feature in the New York Times: 鈥溾��&苍产蝉辫;

While 鈥淚t鈥檚 Corn鈥� gave a definite boost 鈥� the account now has 2.4 million followers 鈥� Shapiro-Barnum said there have been many other videos among his favorites. Kids who do especially well in front of the camera, he said, often come back for follow-up conversations and he keeps in touch with many of the families via text.

In an exclusive conversation with 社区黑料, the creator shared his top five all-time favorite Recess Therapy clips 鈥� apart from the video that took over the summer.

Check them out:

Outer Space is TOO degreesy

What if you were President?

Money comes from WHERE?

KOMODO DRAGONS

Gas is too ‘spensive

The 12-minute history lesson, which landed in mid-February, traces the decades-long legal leadup to the case, as well as the 鈥渦nforeseen consequences鈥� that played out afterward, series host Clint Smith on Twitter.

鈥�Brown v. Board was an historic and incredibly important court case that reshaped the landscape of American society, but sometimes it鈥檚 presented as a singular good without people sitting with its more unsavory consequences,鈥� said Smith, who is the author of New York Times bestseller .

鈥淎s always, we have to hold and grapple with both.鈥�

The video is the 33rd in what will be a on Black American history launched by Crash Course in April 2021. The episodes cover topics ranging from the and the to and of African Americans from the rural South to the industrial North. Each is narrated by Smith and are eight to 15 minutes in length. Crash Course has some 13 million YouTube subscribers and most of the Black history episodes have racked up hundreds of thousands of views. 

鈥淚 am learning so much from these videos on the African American fight for civil rights and I鈥檝e taught it for years! So worth the watch!鈥� history and politics teacher Swerupa wrote in a Twitter sharing the Brown episode.

Experts say the lesson captures a level of historical complexity that frequently evades teachings on the topic.

鈥淭hat video got at all of the important elements of [Brown], but also presented the story in the nuance that I think it deserves and often is not given,鈥� said Keffrelyn Brown, co-founder of the Center for Innovation in Race, Teaching, and Curriculum at the University of Texas.

鈥淲e often just say, 鈥楬ere鈥檚 Brown, and then society changed after 鈥�54 鈥�. You do not [frequently see it taught] that there were multiple cases, there were multiple actors, multiple plaintiffs,鈥� added Anthony Brown, the Center鈥檚 other co-founder.

As the Crash Course lesson explains, the NAACP played 鈥渢he long game鈥� in order to win the Brown case, laying the legal foundation for their victory over the preceding two decades. In 1930, they issued the 200-page challenging the doctrine of 鈥渟eparate but equal.鈥� In the 1940s, they won some smaller legal victories against segregation in higher education. And then in 1952, the NAACP brought separate cases challenging K-12 segregation in South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Delaware and Washington, D.C. that in 1953 were combined into Brown.

But after the historic victory, some efforts to desegregate schools triggered harmful consequences for Black families.

鈥淪ome school districts completely closed schools rather than integrate Black children,鈥� explained Smith. 

The video references Prince Edward County, Virginia, for example, where in 1959, lawmakers shut down all public school classrooms for five years rather than educate Black and white children together.

As lawmakers across the country have moved to restrict what opponents have deemed to be divisive teachings on race and gender, with legislation introduced in 37 states and passed in 14, according to , the University of Texas Center鈥檚 co-founders agree that materials such as the Crash Course video may be useful for teachers looking to cover this episode in history accurately and without bias.

鈥淚 don’t think I found anything in it divisive or controversial,鈥� said Anthony Brown. 鈥淭he archives will speak for themselves. The histories will speak for themselves. And then it will provide opportunities for learning for students that I think this video did well.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

His 8-year-old daughter would be able to watch and understand the content, he believes.

Carol Swain, on the other hand, believes the clip is 鈥渨ell done,鈥� but appropriate only for high school students, not those who are younger.

The former Vanderbilt University professor, who is Black and has emerged as an outspoken critic of teachings on structural racism, takes issue with the video鈥檚 ending, which relays that school segregation today remains as severe as it was in the late 1960s.

鈥淭he implication is that it鈥檚 because of white people,鈥� she told 社区黑料. 鈥淭here are many reasons that segregation persists today, including socioeconomic factors.鈥�

Through the 1960s and into the 鈥�70s, schools made progress toward racial integration, particularly in the American South. But much of those gains have since eroded, leaving the country鈥檚 schools highly segregated today.

The scholar, who co-chaired former President Donald Trump鈥檚 1776 Commission, argues that K-12 lessons should strike a more positive tone, for example by highlighting the multiracial collaborations that won gains for Black Americans through the Civil Rights Movement. Lessons on entrenched racism she argues are less productive for students of all races.

鈥淚t saps you of hope if you learn the system is rigged against you,鈥� said Swain. 

April Peters-Hawkins, who is an associate professor at the University of Houston and has studied the ripple effects of Brown, strongly disagrees. It鈥檚 important for students to learn the accurate history of Jim Crow even when ugly, she argues, because those events have implications for today.

For example, after Brown, thousands of highly qualified Black teachers were dismissed because white parents would not accept the idea of their children being taught by Black instructors. Academic research documents to students of all races, but especially Black students, from having a Black teacher. The U.S. continues to have a persistent racial gap in its teacher force. About 79 percent of teachers nationwide are white compared to only 47 percent of public school students.

鈥淲e鈥檝e never recovered from that [loss of Black educators] as a society,鈥� Peters-Hawkins told 社区黑料.

She regrets that many states are clamping down on lessons on race rather than addressing those issues head-on. 

鈥淲e continue to get more and more restrictive about what can be taught,鈥� she said. Pushing away from tough topics, she believes, means 鈥渨e鈥檙e actually becoming more ignorant.鈥�

For those who worry over the comfort of white students learning about past and present racism, she poses a separate consideration.

鈥淭hink about how uncomfortable it is to live in this country in 2022 and be a Black American,鈥� said Peters-Hawkins. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 uncomfortable every day.鈥�