​We were very careful in our scholarship. We double- and triple-checked academic references, quotes, stories about young people who struggle due to social media, and anything else we could find.  

Nonetheless, nobody and nothing is perfect. On this page, we present factual errors that were made in the book.

We also include a postscript which includes statements that we would like to modify based on knowledge gained after the book's publication in March 2024.

1) True Mistakes

1.1. p. 236: The Louisiana pornography law.

I (Jon) said that a 2023 law “required sites whose content is more than one-third pornographic to verify that visitors were over 18, using the state’s digital wallet app to present their Louisiana driver’s license.” Soon after publication, Rep. Laurie Schlegel contacted me to tell me that I was wrong about what the law required. Here is the relevant part of her email: 

Your book states that Louisiana's law, in 2023, required users to upload their driver’s licenses, leading to Pornhub blocking access for Louisiana residents. This is not quite accurate. While the law became effective Jan 2023, it passed in 2022 and allowed for multiple methods of age verification. One method to verify a user’s age, which Pornhub decided to utilize, was the LA wallet app. LA Wallet is a third-party system that verifies age without storing personal data or requiring direct upload of identification to the website. It does not send any identifying information to the websites; just the course age that the user is over 18, thus protecting people’s privacy and identity. Our system more closely aligns with the model you advocated for as a preferred method instead of one to be discouraged.

This approach has not only been effective in our state but also respects user privacy and minimizes data exposure, differing significantly from the direct upload of identification to a site you mentioned. In addition, because of this option in Louisiana, Pornhub decided to comply with our age verification laws and not block access to their site in Louisiana. I think we are one of the only age verification states where they have not pulled out of and instead decided to comply with our law.

This is very exciting. Louisiana actually did allow for multiple verification methods, using third-party (non-government) methods, and it seems to be working! I’ll update the text of the ebook and book over the next few months. For a review of the law and what it requires, see here.

2) Postscript

2.1 p. 128, About the Brain Drain study

On page 128, Jon states, 

“But even when students don’t check their phones, the mere presence of a phone damages their ability to think. In one study, researchers brought college students into the lab and randomly assigned them to (1) leave their bag and phone out in the entry room of the lab, (2) keep their phone with them in their pocket or bag, or (3) put their phone on their desk next to them. They then had the students complete tasks that tested their fluid intelligence and working memory capacity, such as by solving math problems while also remembering a string of letters. They found that performance was best when phones were left in the other room, and worst when phones were visible, with pocketed phones in between. The effect was bigger for heavy users. The article was titled “Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity.” When adolescents have continuous access to a smartphone at that developmentally sensitive age, it may interfere with their maturing ability to focus. 

We thank Reuben Arslan for calling attention to a meta-analysis that contradicted this claim.

A large meta-analysis was published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior in  January 2024, analyzing 33 studies (166 effect sizes, N = 4368) that involved manipulating the presence of smartphones (smartphones had to be visually present in the smartphone-presence condition). 

The authors of the study conclude: 

It was found that the mere presence of smartphone had no significant effect on cognitive outcomes (d = −0.02, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.01], p = .246). Further, the effect of mere presence of smartphone was not moderated by demographics, trait smartphone dependency, or various methods for manipulating smartphone presence and assessing cognitive outcomes.

An important additional note from the authors:

Our findings suggest that it is still premature to support that a complete isolation from smartphones could improve academic and work productivity. While the distracting effect of smartphones’ notifications has been well documented, there is little evidence that the mere presence of smartphones affects cognitive processing.

The evidence indicates that my initial claim—that merely having access to a smartphone would negatively impact cognitive performance—may be incorrect. However, the authors of the study clarify that their findings do not establish that having a smartphone in a classroom is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. They simply demonstrate that the existing studies, taken together, do not show clear evidence that the mere presence of a smartphone disrupts cognition.

We will adjust the text when we make modifications for the next edition.