Exploring the human side of digital life, this World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 session discusses how increased connectivity can coexist with feelings of isolation and what it means for communities and well‑being.
At Davos 2026, Adam Grant moderated a candid debate on how digital connectivity can coexist with “hyper loneliness.” Jonathan Haidt argued youth well-being sharply deteriorated after 2012, with purpose and meaning collapsing as embodied play and in-person friendship formation declined. His prescription was blunt: “keep them the hell away from these digital products until they’re done with puberty,” advocating phone-free schools and “no social media before 16.” Bill Ready, CEO of Pinterest, largely agreed, calling current social media “not safe for users under 16. Full stop,” and described removing social features for under-16s while nudging students off-platform during school hours. Ready framed the core issue as a market failure: harms to users are “positive outcomes for the platforms” in an attention economy that “driving engagement… [means] driving division.”
The conversation turned to AI companions as “attachment hacking.” Haidt warned that AI shortcuts reduce the “hard things” children must practice to build social competence. Jenny Kim offered a nuanced Gen Z view: she sometimes uses LLMs for affirmation and time-zone gaps, but insisted AI must be “backed up by physical relationship with real people.” Grant highlighted the risk of one-sided bonds where “you cannot add any value to an AI companion.” Consensus emerged on collective solutions—laws, norms, and safer product design—to break the “collective action problem” keeping kids online.
Hi everyone. I'm Adam Grant, organizational psychologist. I'm here with Bill Reddy, CEO of Pinterest, John Hight, author of The Anxious Generation, social psychologist, and Jenny Kim from Seoul who's a software engineer and a global shaper. We're here to talk about connection and loneliness. And, John, I want to start with you. My 17 year old tells me that thanks to technology, she is in close touch with her friends on five continents that she met at a summer program two years ago never would have happened in the past. So clearly technology is making everything better, right?
Sure. Of course. Until recently, technology made things easier, and the idea that you could talk for free with people around the world, say on FaceTime is wonderful, that is great. But that's not really what happened to young people. So the saddest graph in my book, The Anxious Generation, is the one about what 18 year olds in the United States, whether they agree with this statement, my life feels meaningless or I have no purpose. And those numbers were very low, about 8 or 9% in the 90s and all the way up to 2010, 2011. No change. And all of a sudden 2012, you get a big elbow and it doubles. Over the next 8 or 10 years, young people feel useless, pointless. All they do is consume because they are useless. They're not really doing anything. All they're doing is consuming. And what I've what. The main point I want to make here is that we are we are physical, embodied, evolved creatures. We develop in a certain way with a kind of give and take. We're physical. Children need to wrestle and touch and share food and play synchronous games like Patty-cake. All that stuff is how you develop friendships. It's all gone now, or at least greatly diminished. I do not believe that there are digital substitutes for children growing up. I think the only answer here is keep them off. If you want to prepare your children for the digital age, keep them the hell away from these digital products until they're done with puberty, which is around 16. I'll just start with that by putting that stake in the ground.
Okay. Jenny, you I think you belong to Gen Z. Do you feel like you're pointless?
Well, not really. So, I'm part of Global Shapers, so probably we're the youngest population among all the people in the World Economic Forum. I do see the literature, this literature that suggests that the youngest population are the loneliness population among all. But I don't think it's just about technology. It should we should also think about like how political education or educational geographical economical factors all factor in. So maybe it's not the technology that's making people lonely, but maybe there are other factors to that. And for my experience, I studied in the United States, in the Bay area, and I also worked there. And then I moved back to Korea. And digital platform is the way to keep my long distance friendship. So I have a slightly take on this. Yeah, yeah.
Okay. Bill, you are running a social media platform and you've really departed from the norm in saying, I do not want to just hijack your attention.
Yes. And actually, this is a point, John and I've spoken a lot about this together, actually significantly agree with John's points. And in fact, one of the things I did shortly after coming in as CEO of Pinterest three and a half years ago was turn off all the social features for under 16 for exactly the reasons John just mentioned. Stated simply, even as somebody who has been inside these platforms understands how these algorithms work, I do think social media as currently configured is not safe for users under 16. Full stop. And, you know, we acted with our our own actions and turn that off. And I think I'll share that, you know, I think is, you know, by the way, it's not the full solution. I think, you know, there's there are many other issues at play here. Of course. But, you know, people thought that, you know, it would be the end of our platform with young users. In fact, at the time I came in as CEO, Pinterest was declining in users. It was sort of seen as aging up and aging out. We've, as of our last quarter, nine straight quarters of record high users, more than half the platform is Gen Z, and one of the primary reasons they say they come to Pinterest is they see it as an oasis away from the toxicity they experience elsewhere. And I share that. Not to say, you know, hey, look at us, but to say the kids are smarter than you think. I think the kids know they're not all right. They just haven't had better alternatives. And by the way, I also agree that better alternatives shouldn't just be digital. A lot of what we're doing on our platform is trying to encourage people to get off the platform, to help them make connections in the real world, to help them engage in activities outside of the digital experience. Tangible example of this. You know, if we see a school age user come to the platform during school hours, we actually we've advocated for phone free schools and things like that alongside John and others. But if somebody that's of school age comes to our platform during school hours, we will give them a prompt that says, hey, we love you, which means we also care about your education. Come back and see us after school, because we actually think it's really important that you engage with people in the classroom for your learning. So I share that to say, I do think, yes, I agree in the problem statement. I also think an alternative is possible. And I think young people are looking for those alternatives. And I think if we can do more to give them those alternatives, not just digitally, but in the physical world, all the other constructs, I think there's real demand for it. They're there, there's hunger for it.
Well, I think to build on that, one of the most troubling symptoms that I've seen in the last year is reliance on AI companions has exploded. I think a majority of, of young people will say in most developed countries that they have an AI companion that they rely on for emotional support and advice, not just information. And a minority of those people actually prefer the AI companion to a human. What are we going to do about that?
Yeah. Well, so even before AI companions, one of the main things said about Gen Z, especially the boys, is very lacking in social skills, eye contact not really suitable for collaboration. That was before AI. What social media did is called attention hacking. They understood and they studied the dopamine system. They learned all about brain development. They hacked the attention system so they could take all of your attention onto their platform, fighting with each other to get more. So that's attention hacking. What's really frightening is that now it's attachment hacking. Many of you know what the attachment system is. It's the thing with all mammals that links you to the mother or caretaker, but it's a give and take thing where you then go off and play, and if something goes wrong, you come back and you develop a you have a secure base. So all of that is the attachment system, which is certainly the foundation of adult romantic love and marriage. You have if you don't have if you have healthy attachment system, you're much more likely to have a successful romantic relationship. Then there's also friendships which are awkward and hard, and you need a lot of practice. AI companions take take all of it away. Technology is great as a shortcut. Technology helps us be more effective in doing the things we want to do. It makes it easy. Children need to do hard things thousands and thousands of times. Now that they have AI for everything, they are not doing hard things, which means they will not develop, which means they will not be very useful as employees or as spouses.
Jenny, you talk to us about your colleagues and your friends. Do you see people relying on AI companions?
At least for me, I do sometimes rely on AI companions because I really want to be met with empathy. So when I whenever I'm talking to my friends, for instance, if I'm nervous speaking at Davos, my friends can limitlessly listen. And also we have a time difference. So our.
AI friends, you're calling them your friends?
Yes. I'm like large language models. Like.
We have to get used to this terminology.
Yeah, like I'll just prompt it and be like, oh, I'm so anxious. And the AI will be like, oh, you'll do great. And I need that word of affirmation. So I do use it that way as a Gen Z. And also like not just the AI for digital platforms. When I was studying, like when I first moved to the United States as a college student, I feel deeply lonely at times because I moved away from home for the first time in a young age, and looking at social media didn't really help at all, because I knew that we're not having a meaningful conversation, nor like I'm sharing my highs and lows with my friends. It was just a unilateral conversation. But with LLM is actually I feel like I'm having some unilateral conversation, though I would have to say that it has to be backed up by physical relationship with real people. It's not just the AI who can be my friends and my colleague. I need to have a real human interaction. And I feel like for some missing parts, like if I can talk to my friends due to the time zone, or if I want to discuss something very technical, I use AI as my companion, but it's not a replacement for them.
But if you spend a lot of time with it and a lot of your thought, that isn't that going to make you less likely to do the hard work of making a friend or talking to someone, doesn't one substitute for the other?
I feel like so our topic is about loneliness. For me personally, I don't think Llms or AI models are actually taking loneliness away from me. It's just a substitute. When my friends are not available. I prefer to have physical relationship with my friends, and I would like to get AI's help to schedule some time with my friends or get their post as an algorithm. So, I feel like it's actually being used as a substitute, or more like a way to strengthen my relationship with physical, bodies, like physical people. Like in this real world.
It seems much healthier than the alternative. One of the things that worries me a lot about AI companions, though, is, in real human relationships. There is, as John was pointing out earlier, a give and take. We want to feel that we matter. And that's not just about being valued by others. It's also making a difference, having something to contribute to others. You cannot add any value to an AI companion, right? That is a one sided relationship. And that seems to me very dangerous.
And I think this, this part of the dialogue sort of highlights what makes this issue so difficult is that, you know, AI, social media, just like any technology through human history, can be used for good or for bad. And, you know, I think as the first and still the only social media CEO to say that the comparison to big Tobacco is appropriate on multiple dimensions. But one place where it's not appropriate is that, you know, you don't need tobacco. I don't know of a good use of tobacco that you really need. There are plenty of good uses of these technologies. And so the question is like, how do you parse the good uses from the bad? How do you think about the right guardrails? So that, you know, you know, I think in these examples of, you know, one that I often cite is, you know, I was first in my family go to college, need government assistance to be able to afford to do that. When I got to college, I realized, like, oh, some of these other people had, like, you know, private tutors to help them prep for the SAT and things like that. And I just had like a used book from the library with pages missing. And the only assistance I got was like, you know, some of the rows were highlighted. But now, now everybody gets a personal tutor, right? So, you know, that can unlock a huge amount of human creativity. At the same time, if it becomes a substitute for engaging with a live teacher or having discussions with other students, I think there's a lot that we miss out on. And so I think this is the question is like, how do we think about guardrails around these things? How do we how do we get more intentional? And I say we I think it's, you know, part of why I've been outspoken about this is I do think that, you know, this industry needs more accountability. And so be the change you want to see in the world. That's part of what brought me to Pinterest is to say, hey, we can do this differently. And we're certainly not perfect, but we're trying to be much more intentional about parsing, you know, directing people to the better outcomes and then avoiding some of the things that, you know, are, are negative outcomes, not for the platform. This is the problem. This is where even as a capitalist, I would say there's a market failure here, which is the negative outcomes for the users are in the current construct, positive outcomes for the platforms and the attention economy. Staying glued to that screen is a positive outcome. But I think if you take a long term view, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that extraordinary to say that you should care about the long term well-being of your users. People that build any other product, would generally be interested in having a repeat customer and having somebody who, like, thinks that over the it feels that over the long term, you have to take care of them. So we're trying to prove that out. But I think you've got to take a longer term view of these things to say, well, I make it less time on the platform today, but if I actually help somebody make a real world connection or help them with some tutoring, but also gave them the confidence to engage in a real classroom with a real teacher, or to get a real life friend. Yeah. Then you created more value, better long term well-being. But I think this is where the business model needs to evolve and the accountability needs to evolve.
Yeah. So let's talk about some concrete solutions. John, you've been doing a lot of policy work. You just met with the head of state last night. What's getting you excited about the possibility for improving the situation.
So what's getting me excited is that almost everybody sees the problem. Everybody who's a parent sees the problem. And increasingly I'm hearing people say it's not just about the kids. I can't focus, I can't concentrate. I'm sorry. What were you saying? So so the fact that these companies have basically aroused the anger of the mothers of the world means that anytime anyone puts up a political proposal, it has huge public support. And so I met with President Macron last night. They're going to push ahead in France. I'm meeting with people in the UK in the in the EU. So the legislation around phone free schools is sweeping the world. And it's just spectacular. Like people see like, oh wait, when kids aren't watching porn and playing video games during class, they're actually paying attention to the teacher or their friends. So phone free schools is is is is the, you know, the most concrete thing we can do to give all kids 6 or 7 hours a day away from that. And the second is just raise the age to 16. We've had, you know, the tech companies, the tech companies try to say, oh, no, we need to just teach kids how to use it responsibly. Yeah. Who has succeeded in that? We're all struggling. The people in Silicon Valley say, just, no, you can't use it, my kids, because, you know, I know what it does. So what gives me hope is the phone free schools. I think 2026 is going to be the year where many countries raised the age to 16. And if we can do that, if we can win on social media, which has been with us for a long time, we understand the damage. Then we have a chance to win on AI. But if we can't win on social media, then it's game over. Just give up, let all the kids go off into little pods and not reproduce. Seriously.
I think one of the most encouraging findings so far from the phones free schools research is a reduction in bullying consistently. We saw this in Norway, right? And also an increase in reading books getting taken out from the library, which at first sounds like a lonely activity, but actually you learn theory of mind when reading. You build empathy. You start to have to take a character's perspective. And so that seems that seems like good news.
Yeah. That's right. And the main thing we hear, we always hear is teachers and administrators say we hear laughter in the hallways. Again, we haven't heard that in ten years, because in every school in America, at least in between classes, everyone's on their phone. And now my daughter goes to New York City public schools. We went all phone free and the whole state of New York in September. She says, daddy, lunch is great. It's so much better now. We're playing games, we're talking, we're making up games. So yeah, it really works. We've got to get the kids away from this and let them grow up in the physical world with each other. Then they'll jump into the toilet. Bowl of life online.
I love you on that one. Thanks, Jenny, I want to I want to hear you talk a little bit about the norms that you'd like to see created. So if you think about what healthy uses of technology for connection have looked like, how can we get more of that? Do you have rules with your coworkers or with your friends around putting your phones away?
So when I was in high school, I went to a boarding school and I went to a school in Korea where we got our laptop confiscated at night. So we're not supposed to use our laptops in the dorm. And I, I really didn't like the policy because as a high schooler, we should learn how to cope with the technology. Like, learn how to manage our own schedule and get used to the digital platform. So we should learn how to use laptop to gather all the information, and we should learn how to manage our time. So just banning the laptop from high school I thought wasn't a really good idea. So some parents really liked it because they're worried their kids might just play video games at night. Yeah. So for me, I feel like, I think I'm a healthy user where, like, I don't really rely on the social media or like large language model a lot. But for little kids, I think there are, there should be some discussions on like how we can make a better, better platform and better regulations for them to grow and learn how to communicate properly. But I don't have a kid yet, and I'm not sure, like, what would be the best way to do that is. But I know for sure that kids should learn how to control themselves. So it shouldn't just be like universal restriction on like, you shouldn't use your social media like until a certain age. But in my personal opinion, they should learn how to do it. And as a software engineer who is making a lot of different software, I think we should all think about how to make a more friendly platform by having a right metrics and signals to build the right platform. Yeah.
John, what is it that has convinced you we can't teach kids up until 16 to set reasonable boundaries?
Yeah. One of the things that's convinced me is that I teach courses at New York University. I have a course of undergraduates around 19 years old, and I also teach a similar class on flourishing to my MBA students who are in their late 20s. And and I love to use a computer during class, I take notes, I look things up. But what I realized about 4 or 5 years ago, my Tas said, you know, because every other students, I'd say you can use your laptop if you stand up and pledge that you will only use it for class related purposes. And they do that. And then the Ta told me half of the class is checking their stock portfolio, their LinkedIn. They're, you know, so students so college students can't handle it. They can't self-regulate because there's just so much coming in. We can't handle it. We can't. Well, I mean, we can sort of self-regulate, but we struggle with it. Children absolutely cannot. They absolutely cannot. So what I've done, and what increasing numbers of college professors are doing, is saying no screens of any kind in this class, no screens. And the students agree. They agree and they say, wow, it's so much, you know, I'm paying all this money for an education. Now I'm actually listening during class. So the so the idea that young people need to learn ideally they should. But that's the same about cigarettes and gambling and all sorts of vices. We pass laws with minimum ages when things are addictive, when there is graphic sexuality, when there is horrific violence, real world violence, not fictional violence. Those are the reasons why we have age limits. All three apply extremely well to social media. And so I do not believe that we need digital citizenship. We need to teach them how to use it. No, these things are not appropriate for children. Talking with strangers and hooking yourself up to algorithms fine tuned by gigantic brilliant eyes to keep you. This is just not appropriate for children. If we want to teach children self-control, keep them the hell away from this stuff until their executive function develops. In puberty, we must protect puberty. If we don't protect puberty, let alone early childhood, there's really not much, not much we can do.
There is a complicating factor here, though. And John, you've acknowledged this, that because a lot of a lot of kids are on social media, if you don't let your kid on, then they're at risk of being isolated and ostracized. Even so, obviously this is a collective action problem. But in the meantime, what is a parent to do?
Yeah. So if an individual parent is trying to make the decision, they are imposing a cost on their child. That's the definition of a collective action problem. The way we escape from collective action problems is collectively. And the kids don't love this stuff. The kids the kids don't want to necessarily be on social media, but they're afraid of is being left out. And so one thing we found with phone free schools, some students object beforehand, but once the phone free schools implemented, they mostly love it because everyone's off and now they're actually having fun. And so that's why we need laws. That's the main way that we break collective action traps. And we need collective action among families. So if parents who have kids around the same age in a neighborhood agree to have a neighborhood, it's called, like the kids can roam around between our houses, they don't need to check with us like they're on their own in the afternoons. That's amazing. And so collective action, from neighborhood to school to state or province to nation, is the way we get out of this.
Isn't it? Add to that, I think, John, you've shared this data and it's a pretty powerful stat. I think roughly half of all young people wish that social media didn't exist. So, you know, how many products do you know of that most of the people use it, wish it didn't exist. It tends to only be things that are like vice, addiction, things like that. And these products have been designed to be addictive. And I think part of what makes it this collective action problem is that it was designed to be addictive by hacking into things that as a young person, you are supposed to care about, you know, as a teenager, you know, you know, and this is where a lot of the opposition research comes from is saying like, oh, well, there's always been teenage anxiety, right? Every teenager, you know, we all went through the awkward teenage years of where do we sit in the social status and where were we in a friend group and things like that. You know, is this person really my best friend? And so, yes, we all went through that. What what we didn't go through at our age was to have an app that will say to you, oh, would you like to know where you rank in your friend group? Yeah, I could tell you for a few dollars a month, I could tell you and then tell you. And then the person that I thought John was my best friend. But actually, while John's the sun and my solar system, I'm Neptune and his. What's that do to a friend? This is real, this is real. This is real. And and then. But good news, Bill. You can improve your standing if you have more messages with John on our platform.
So don't break the streak.
So so this so this is back to why is it a collective action problem. It has been designed to be addictive and designed to tap into things that you should care about. It is right to care about forming friendships. It is right to care about, you know, you know, are you sort of norming and sort of figuring out how to fit in. Those are right things to care about at that age. But it's been hacked. And so I do think that is why we can't just say, well, the kids, you should have self control because they can't just choose on their own. It is a collective action problem. Because even if I choose to sit out and Adam and John are talking about like, oh, did you see the rankings? Well, there's an equal and offsetting effect of being left out of that conversation. Right? So it is truly collective action.
Jenny.
I just wanted to add one quick point. So I'm from Korea and people like playing video games like especially during puberty. And we had a lot where I think it was after 10 p.m., people who were under 16 cannot play video games, and they have to authenticate themselves in order to play video games. After hours. And all the kids in my middle school, they got their parents authentication and they created the game account. And people, the parents who didn't allow their kids to play video games were left out of the conversation. So we we should also think about like when we impose the law, what kind of counter effects it would have to the kids as well.
But those are short term. It takes a while to change norms, and since everyone's stuck in a trap to say that it's difficult to get out of the trap, therefore we shouldn't do it. I don't think is right. This what we're talking about here is a scale of destruction of human capital and human potential beyond anything we've ever seen. Okay, World War one, World War two. It's hard to compare to those, but other than that, we are destroying human capital at a rate so vast, and not just for Gen Z. Now it appears for Gen Alpha. Gen Z didn't have iPads when they were two. Gen Alpha was raised with iPads from the age of two. Scrolling, scrolling, scrolling, scrolling from the age of two. So yes, you're right, some kids will feel left out. But one thing we found in the surveys of parents and of teens is nobody wishes they'd gotten the technology earlier, neither the parents or the kids. But a lot of people wish they had waited. So I think in the long run, they're better off and they'll recognize it if you wait.
Yeah, I think we were watching Stranger Things with our kids, and, each one of them said, I wish I grew up in the 80s or 90s.
Yeah.
And I said, why? And they said, just the image of all these kids riding their bikes to meet up and trying to get their walkie talkies to work so they could figure out where to gather in person, they had nostalgia for something they'd never even experienced. It's so sad. It is sad, but it should also create a real sense of urgency in all of us. So let's go to the audience. I'm sure people in the room have questions, Andrew Ross, just to remind people that questions end in a question mark. So I will I will reinforce that if you have a question, a mic will come to you. Let's go over here.
Thank you so much. Fascinating. I just want to follow up on this, the gaming idea and that you don't want to feel left out. What tangible solutions would you recommend because you don't want, you know, little boys, little girls to feel like, oh, I'm not part of this. So the peer pressure is real. What tangible solutions would you recommend?
Well, you have to have alternatives. And so I mean the four norms that I recommended in the anxious generation to break out. No smartphone before 14, no social media before 16, phone free schools and far more independence, free play and responsibility in the real world. So if you were to say, you know, you can have two hours of video games a week on weekends only, but if you have three friends over, then you can play, because at least that's social. Anything you can do to encourage the kids getting together in person, you can be a lot looser on. They'll share food, they'll share laughs, they'll hug, they'll wrestle. We've got to get kids together. It's not just taking away the screens.
Yeah.
So we've talked a lot about the next generation. I know. And as a parent I care deeply about that. But I also have aging parents. So how should we think about any of these phenomena with an older generation?
Yeah.
I think these effects, you know, while they're most pronounced with young people, it affects all of us. And, you know, one of the things I would say is that, you know, this is a place it's an amazing place to gather and talk about all the most pressing issues in the world, of which there are many. But I think one of the biggest, if not the biggest is that, you know, we have the largest, most profitable business model in the history of humanity has, at its core, driving engagement via engagement, driving division. And if you look at, you know, all of human progress, you know, our brains are wired fundamentally the same as they were 100,000 years ago, when we would have all been in different tribes. And the right instinct would have been, if I encounter somebody different than me, I should club them to death. And then somewhere along the way we figured out like, oh, well, actually, if we work together, you know, we can have agriculture and farming and technology and we can prosper together. And so all of human progress has really been about appealing to the better angels of our nature. And we now have the largest, most profitable business model in the world that has, at its core, preying upon the worst aspects of human nature. And I think we see it reflected all around us. And, and so, yes, it's most pronounced, with young people, but it affects all of us. The one thing I would say is, like, I do think there's a market failure here. I do think we need thoughtful regulation around this. Otherwise it's a race to the bottom. The incentives are all wrong for businesses to change this, and we're trying to show a free market solution to this. I do think we need thoughtful regulation. But I think one of the things that I've, I have seen that is gives me hope is that even in places where, you know, there's lots of political division, you know, kids are not on the political left, they're not on the political right. You know, people are parents. They care about their young people. And this is actually quite bipartisan. And, you know, not just the US countries around the world. And so if we can start fixing this for our young people, maybe we can start fixing this for others. If you look at Big Tobacco, where did you take cigarettes away first? Well, let's make sure kids don't get them. And they didn't want to be left out of the smoke break at high school. Right. And but you took it away from young people first, and then eventually people were like, oh, this is actually bad for all of us. And I think if we can start with our young people here, maybe that can start to create a foundation where we can say, actually, these harms are affecting all of us. We see it all around us. But if we can start with our kids, which it's easier for us to agree on, maybe that can be a path to solving it more broadly.
Jenny, do you want to add.
Yeah, I just wanted to really one point. I think that's a really crucial part of the point. And I've been thinking about it a lot because in Korea, like a couple of years ago, it was possible to get a taxi by just stopping them. But right now, like elders are not able to get the taxi. So a couple of weeks ago I had to call the taxi for a for a foreign, old individual who was who wasn't able to get the taxi to get back to their home because they were waiting in court for 30 minutes. So like with the technology advancement, there will be some people who will be left out and usually it might be the older generation. So we would also have to think about them. And I think that's a really important message.
All right. Last question right up here. We'll do this in rapid fire because we have one minute left.
We'll be quick. Honestly this conversation has been building last year's Davos. Jonathan, you spoke with Governor Huckabee at the time and a policy world, what's your call to action for all global leaders with Australia adopting under 16. To accelerate from a legislative perspective what we should be doing in schools and for incumbents. Now coming into the conversation, Bill, with you, how can we and the free market be promoting better solutions to kind of build together between public and private, in the spirit of the form and the spirit of dialogue?
20s go.
Okay, just say we have to realize that the internet is an amazing and varied place with a lot of areas that are wildly inappropriate for children talking with anonymous strangers who can extort as many people as they want, and then if they can just open more accounts, if they get shut down. So we have to we have to. And Australia helped us come to the realization that we need to do this and that it actually is possible. So we need to do this globally. We have 100 years of making the physical world safe for kids. We got to do that online.
Yeah. And on the public private part, you know, an example I use a lot is that regulation doesn't have to be against innovation. You know, it's not that long ago, a few decades back, you had many major auto manufacturers saying seatbelts were against the business model. And two things happened. One, you had some thoughtful regulation that not only mandated seatbelts, but actually created crash test ratings. Once there was a common standard, people could innovate to exceed that standard, because now you want to put your family in the car that most exceeds that standard. And you had car companies start to build brands around safety like Volvo is a great example of that. So we're trying to show that there's real consumer demand for this, that consumers will make a choice on this. But I do think we also need the complement of that thoughtful regulation to set a baseline from which we can compete. I'd love to wake up in a world where, you know, social media companies, AI companies, tech companies competed on their safety records the same way that auto manufacturers compete on theirs.
We hope to see that world in 2027. Thanks, everyone.
So much. Yeah.