From comic books to TikTok: a short history of panics about kids and new media

Long before screens

Worry about what new media does to young people is very old. Psychologist Amy Orben, who studies technology and teen wellbeing at the University of Cambridge, traces it through novels, radio and now smartphones. In a podcast interview she also points to books, bicycles, video games and email, each greeted at some point with warnings about its effects.

Her 2020 paper opens with a 1941 study of children's reactions to horror in movies and crime on the radio. The questions researchers asked then sound a lot like the ones asked about phones today.

The 1950s: comic books on trial

Comics are a famous example. In 1954, psychiatrist Fredric Wertham published *Seduction of the Innocent*, which blamed crime and horror comics for juvenile delinquency. That same year, a US Senate subcommittee on juvenile delinquency held public hearings on comic books. The industry responded by policing itself with the Comics Code, a strict set of content rules that shaped what comics could show for decades.

Video games and the violence debate

Later, video games took their turn. After mass shootings, games were often blamed for violent behaviour, by the media and by some politicians.

In 2020, the American Psychological Association updated its position. It said there is not enough scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behaviour. It also said research does show a small, reliable link with aggressive behaviour like yelling and pushing, and that this is hard to extend to serious violence. Blaming games, the APA said, distracts from other factors that matter more.

Why the cycle repeats

Orben calls this pattern the "Sisyphean cycle," after the figure in Greek myth condemned to push a boulder uphill forever.

Here is how it goes. A new technology becomes popular with young people. Adults worry. Researchers are asked to reassure the public, but each time they start almost from scratch, without building on what earlier panics taught. By the time solid answers arrive, the next new thing has taken over and the cycle begins again.

Orben's point is not that worry is silly. It's that the cycle wastes time. Research and policy end up slow and scattered, when what kids need is useful answers sooner.

What's genuinely new, and what isn't

It would be easy to read this history and decide today's concerns are just the latest panic. That would be a mistake too.

Some things about today's online world are new. Phones are always in a pocket, apps are designed to keep people scrolling, and strangers can reach kids directly. Some risks, like sextortion or harmful content pushed by recommendations, are real and serious, and they deserve clear, practical responses.

What isn't new is the pull toward blaming a whole technology at once. History suggests a better approach: name the specific thing that worries you, look at what the evidence says about it, and focus on what helps. That keeps real risks in view without making every new app the villain.