Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Zoe, 17, likes to switch off her phone and put it in another room so she’s not distracted. Sitting on her bed, she opens her book and begins to read. “I’ve really got into actual books, they are tangible, real and my imagination can run wild,” she says, with a geunine sense of wonder. She consumes anything from novels to non-fiction – especially works on feminism and art.
She used to purchase her items on Amazon but “that took loooong, like 24 hours to be delivered”, so she’s started going to her local library: “It’s great, the books are just there waiting for you.” Uploading a ‘shelfie’ of current reading material has become a popular status update amongst her friends.
Zoe’s generation is rediscovering books in the same way that Millennials discovered vinyl; the difference is that the former are increasingly doing it as a way of logging off from their smartphones. Last year, the psychologist Jean Twenge persuasively argued in The Atlantic that the device had destroyed a generation – but was Twenge too hasty in that conclusion?
Zoe is a member of Generation Z (those born between 1997-2010), who are very different from their Millennial predecessors (those born between 1981-1996). It is often remarked that whereas Millennials came of age in the smartphone era, Generation Z are the social media generation. But the real distinction is that Gen Z are the ones who can’t remember Myspace, think Facebook is for their parents and see the internet primarily as a video medium (using YouTube rather than Google to find something out).
If Facebook and Twitter turned Millennials into commentators, then Snapchat and Instagram have turned Gen Z into broadcasters and storytellers. The average Gen Z’ers have had a smartphone since they were 13, which means they have had the misfortune of living most of their adolescence on-line.
Babyboomers are actually the fastest growing demographic on social media, revelling in the sensation of greater connectivity, but Gen Z – who have lived its realities and its damaging impact on their time and mental health – are the ones questioning the point of it all. In the US, researchers at the University of Chicago found that 58% of teens said that they had voluntarily taken a break from social platforms in the last year.
In the same way that those who grew up with multiple TV channels now find the unlimited choice rather mundane, many teenagers feel they’ve reached iPhone saturation point. They speak of being “phone-bored”; the feeling you get when you find yourself endlessly and aimlessly scrolling through your apps. Social media, as one 16-year-old boy put it to me, “cannot make dull people interesting, plus there’s only so many funny cat videos you can watch”. If such platforms thrive on keeping your attention, are they losing the attention of the young?
Some teenagers are logging off, others are embracing the novelty and freedom of “dumb phones”, such as the deliberately basic Nokia 3310, but it would be wrong to describe Gen Z as neo-luddites. They are, however, developing a very sophisticated and obsessional interest in their data and privacy. Gen Z did not need the Cambridge Analytica revelations to open their eyes to the fact that ‘if the service is free, you are the product’. Unlike their elders, they have been aware of it since their tweens. They have been curating, collating and uploading material for their on-line brand and filtering and ‘spinning’ their personal narratives for at least half of their life.
Snapchat is their favoured app precisely because the content disappears after 10 seconds, although many find the Snapmap feature (locating the live whereabouts of their friends) a bit creepy. Many have both private and a public Instagram, and some have multiple profiles to reflect their many passions, fantasties and, increasingly, identities. Many opt not to use their real name or email addresses to access their platforms.
Gen Z are also using social media in more proactive, communitarian ways. While we can easily dismiss the virtue-signalling ‘clicktivism’ of Millennials (hashtags are the modern-day equivalent of pin badges), Gen Z, instinctively netcitizens, are going beyond this. Take, or example, the survivors and campaigners that emerged out of the Parkland shooting tragedy in the US.
Though themselves too young to vote, their on-line campaign, which began as #neveragain, spiralled into a GoFundMe that raised four million dollars, a national school walkout and companies from Delta to Hertz cutting ties with the NRA. It was remarkable in its speed, penetration and tactics – not to mention far more effective in pressing for change in gun controls than years of conventional consciousness-raising.
Online campaigning for communitarian interests may be a minority sport, but commercial transactions for private gain are where Gen Z is really showing tech intiative. It is estimated that over 70% of today’s teenagers are making their own pocket-money. And they are not doing a paper round or waitressing like previous generations, but selling goods, clothes or organising networks and events on social media. Depop, which has over eight million users, offers their mostly young subscribers a cross between Ebay and Instagram, enabling members to ‘flip’ secondhand clothes and trainers.
Many make a tidy profit and many more are learning a great deal about accountancy, photo-editing and marketing in the process. Scroll through the Depop markeplace and you will find teenagers exhibiting their items as if they were a fashion feature in Vogue. Depop now offers mentoring and support to would-be sellers, helping them to maxmise their market’s potential.
Companies have realised that the only way to reach this adblocker generation – one that is unmoved by traditional airbrushed celebrity-endorsed advertising – is to sell their products via ‘influencers’ on social media. But more than this, companies are seeing the value of ‘micro-influencers’; those with tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of followers. These are increasingly likely to get traction with a generation that prizes intimacy and authenticity.
This generation watches less than an hour of television a day, but four hours of YouTube. The popularity of vloggers lies not in their offer of escapism but their promise of an education (in whatever you are interested in, from how to code to how to apply eyeliner). YouTubers may be the new celebrity class to their millions of followers, but the truth is that all members of Generation Z consider themselves ‘influencers’. That is the agency and perspective that the smartphone has given them.
But could it be that the touch-screen is destroying their sense of touch? A recent survey found that 16-18 year olds prefer sexting to actual sex, with 84% admitting to flirting and over a third confessing they had sent a sexual or nude image on their phones.
It appears that this generation is on a continual loop of digital foreplay, preferring virtual to real interaction. They are also less likely to indulge in the traditional means of social lubrication that often underpin such trysts. In a survey done by the Office of National Statistics, less than half of UK 18-24 year olds had consumed alcohol in the last week, compared with 66% amongst the same age group in 2005.
‘Sober socials’ are now mainstream on university campuses and teenage pregnancy is now at its lowest rates for decades, but should we really be surprised, given that every bar a teenager walks into and every bed that they consider lying in now has a surveillance and recording device nearby? The potential for social shaming through video (not just photos) is so pervasive that it’s no wonder that this generation are sensible and unrebellious.
The iPhone camera has achieved what years of sexual and drug education failed to do; prevented deviancy where public shaming is the ultimate deterrent. Teenagers live in fear of their misdemeanours being broadcast and will therefore do anything to maintain their brand. It is, however, this pressure to control other people’s perception of them which is also leading to record levels of depression and anxiety.
Kids already groan about online ‘sharenting’. An average child in the UK has over 1,500 images of themselves shared on social media before they are five years old. How long will it be before before they start to use GDPR to remove the material?
“My mum needs to learn how to use social media properly,” said one 15-year-old girl I interviewed, “she doesn’t understand that what she posts about me I’m stuck with forever.”
There is a new slang word doing the rounds in the primary playground lately; Tapass. It is what the kids call adults who are on their phone too much. If you think your child spends too much time on their phone, chances are they think the same about you.
Far from destroying a generation, the smartphone has conditioned them in sophisticated, surprising and exciting ways the older ones are only really beginning to understand. And what they learn now will shape them in the future – whether as consumers, activists, voters or entrepreneurs.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMichael Saylor, the world’s greatest pusher of Bit Coin, is the one who really needs a look. He is the ultimate ‘Whale’, tells people to put every penny into it, borrow and invest in it.
Bit Coin is the ultimate sign of the economic times are surpassing ‘Irrational Exuberance’ to become Irrational Psychosis.
Think about money – basically someone produces more than they consume, and the result is wealth. You cut hair, make bicycles, do law or be a doctor… You produce valuable goods and services, and the excess profits you make are ‘Growth’ and wealth. But this is not how the economy works now – it is all finance, smoke and mirrors and insider knowledge and manipulation.
An administrator makes $50,000 p/a, as does his wife. In California (or London, Melbourne) In 2008 they bought a house for $250,000 – now it is worth $2.25 Million. They created nothing – they have 19 times their annual wage, and made no goods and services – this is not prosperity, this is not healthy economy, it is bad money, economically speaking. This is the entire premise of Bit Coin and crypto.
That no goods and services are made, nothing created, improved, Just speculation has driven the price of this thing higher and higher. This is not an economy, this in fact devalues all the money in the system. Crypto is now $$ 3 Trillion! That three Trillion made no goods, instead it enabled 3 $ Trillion to be created in valuation, out of air. These whales bought bit coin at $10. each , fourteen years ago, and it has risen to $56,000 a coin. And still it is NOTHING, it is a Fagazi, smoke…. but the 3 $ Trillion additional devalues the rest of money as it increased money supply wile not increasing goods.
this is Ponzie, ” South Sea Bubble”, the speculation mania that ruined many British investors in 1720″., Tulip Mania…. but has not popped yet…. it is bad money, and that is not good….
Musk, Saylor, Martin Lewis et al will inevitably become prey, mainly because they’ve been such successful predators. They will hunt him with thinbles, they will hunt him with care, they’ll threaten his life with a Tesla share. As far as blockchain and crypto goes i think it has a future – but only as fiat money. It’ll be interesting to see how the e-Krona fares, also Ozzy Osborne’s NFT bat coin is a classic naked Emporer moment which i think Ozzy himself realises, the Bat Coin could well be the source of crypto- covid which brings the whole thing down.
I think you’ll find the Martin Lewis reference is unfair. His name is being used by Bitcoin scammers because he has a justifiably trusted brand.
Bitcoin bad. blockchain good ?
IMHO
Blockchain math has many good uses and will survive. Coin trust relies on that math, would not be possible without the math. Fortunes embedded in a tangible crypto-key? Lose that and the fortune with it.
Add to that the sum of borrowing against the $3T in “assets” and bubble grows even larger.
The bad man made me do it….
Now I’m a Mum and the patriarchy is coming for me, solely because I’m a woman and a mum.
EH had no new technology–it was ALL fraud from the beginning. The formula for Coke is a trade secret, but if Pepsi buys Coke by the lorryload and puts it in Pepsi cans and bottles, that is not a competitive product, that is fraud!
The press found the media darling, the GirlBoss too good to check. Epic failure! Come on Liz, let’s hear your real voice–and I mean that literally!
She SAYS she has produced a miniaturised version of herself .Any proof ?
Noticeably, it is women who are being taken in to a greater extent than men. Why is that? It often seems like every middle class home contains its gullible matron, taken in by the most transparent rubbish, and trying to enforce it on the rest of the family.
And leaving aside some muscle building pundits, the whole influencer business seems to be largely inhabited by females, in some sort of circular conspiracy to dupe each other.
What is going on?
I do think women have more of a natural instinct to be sociable and fit in with the crowd. So when something seems to be the “it” thing/person/activity/whatever, there will be more women who flock to it simply because it’s popular. Not that men are totally immune or anything, I just think the instinct is stronger in women.
I think music is one of the best examples. How many women listen to a pop star simply because the industry and media are pushing them as a star? How many of these pop stars have songs that are memorable or, for that matter, distinguishable from what a dozen others are putting out? (seriously, my gym for some reason plays them most days. If they didn’t put the names on the TV screen I wouldn’t realize they were changing artists nor songs) And once the star is no longer an “it” star, a lot of women will no longer listen to their stuff, not even the songs they used to claim to love.
It was never the music, it was the identity and sense of belonging.
It’s interesting. Unless we have an axe to grind, I think most of us would say that there is a distinct female psychology (or at least tendency) with its own risks and pitfalls. And yet, at the same time we are in denial about the negative aspects of this – while asserting positive aspects and emphasising negative aspects of male psychology.
Anecdotal, but I would say that conformity, gullibility and some particularly vicious forms of intrasexual competition are aspects. Women are more sociable – but that sociability seems to be cut through with a fair bit of selective meanness.
I tend to agree, but surely music is an exception to your thesis, not the best example. It seems to me it’s mainly young men who both perpetrate and fall for the tribal music obsession. I offer High Fidelity in evidence.
The same thing as in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.
Now do Elon Musk, who’s scammed the world into believing Tesla cars are his invention, that it’s been a viable business without taxpayer money and that it’s a green solution (the real green solution to ICE cars is no cars). Let’s not forget his solar roof tile, car tunnel and vacuum tunnel snake oil either.
X.com and those reusable rockets were pure fiction too.
X.com wasn’t a fiction, though it didn’t amount to much.
Elon Musk being responsible for Paypal’s success is of course Tolkeinesque level of mythopoeia.
Reusable rockets… nice trick paid for by government contracts. Although McDonnell Douglas had already done that in the 90s so… the least he could have done is used the last 10 years to make it a feasible commercial technology, unless of course, the physics and economics don’t stack up and he’s bilking investors.
Elon Musk will certainly hope he’ll be on Mars when he becomes the face of the economic crash.
I’m sorry things haven’t worked out for you.
Amen, Elon Musk is the next Elizabeth Holmes. I’ve got my popcorn out for when that plane goes down from engine failure, pilot error and fire on board.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” — Ayn Rand
I feels to me these days Western society is in a state of mass hysteria in denying reality because it’d be a more equitable world that way.
If an individual denies reality, say, goes mad, then others around them can help such a person, sustain them if needed.
If an entire population goes mad, what happens then?
Great article – and reflects exactly the thoughts I had about Holmes when I watched a documentary about her a while back: people will believe what they want to believe and fling the doors wide open to the con artists who will ride the wave of whatever narrative is on the wish list.
With regard to Gwyneth Paltrow, I have to repost Julie Burchill’s brilliant article “Put it away, love” – just so funny: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/02/put-it-away-love/
Thanks for the link to the Julie Burchill article| just priceless!
There are so many gems in that article, but I thought the black and white minstrels one stood out
Thanks
I enjoyed this irreverent link immensely. Interestingly I followed the link to the ‘Vagina Museum’ only to be notified that the vagina museum is temporarily closed while they move to a new location. Maybe the liquor licence hasn’t worked out for them.
I think I remember a male US talk show host ordering one of Gwynnie’s ‘This Smells Like My Vagina’ candles last year. I don’t think he was convinced, but then again, he is gay.
Yes, I am seeing this on multipe fronts. People hyping and scaremongering with little understanding. Whether virtual reality, blockchain, AI, EVs, hyperloop, few people are asking basical questions about feasibility. I think in certain business areas has become socially unacceptable to be pessimistic.
A fine piece. I would add only that Theranos reacted with fury and rottweiler lawyers to anyone who dared to ask an awkward question. That’s a flapping red flag.
As did Robert Maxwell, infamously.
Those who put Kamala Harris into office were also buying a dream.
As an engineer, I’m surprised how gulllible people are when presented with supposed ‘Gee Wizz’ technology. Asking the critical questions perhaps gets ignored when someone else is paying.
A good example is the couple here who sold their fake bomb detectors around the world: Married couple guilty of making fake bomb detectors in garden shed they claimed ‘could find Madeline McCann’
They made £80m from that scam, selling plastic boxes with telescopic ariels.
Recall that Holmes erected huge legal barriers to anyone discovering the scam, including her workers. The promising beginning failing as research stalled. Her crime was never being truthful as the scheme collapsed. She was a victim (maybe) of her own hubris and press.
There is a general collapse of accounting visibility that is a part of the new ‘startup’ economy. I suspect it is going to come back after a disaster.
I am a software engineer and at least part of this stems from the fact people don’t understand the basic technology around them. It isn’t that hard to understand how a car works, how the electricty is wired in one’s house, how basic electronic works or with some more effort even the basics of how a computer works. It doesn’t require that much effort or education – probably only a good secondary eduction and/or appreticeship – would provide in order to understand how these things work.
Instead I have had to endure managers and other people throughout my career babbling on about buzzwords and technologies they have no idea about and seem to believe are the solutions to their problems, when it reality they are nothing of the sort. Some basic level of technical and scientfiic knowhow would make these scams less likely.
Note how in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centiry investment scams in the UK were all about houses in Flordia, mysterious South Sea Islands, recently discovered colonial territory like the Mississippi bubble or (in the London stock market) railways being constructed in South America. These scams thrive on ignorance.
The latest snake oil is the ‘NoCode’ fad peddled to the clueless managerial class i.e. mostly arts graduates with no managerial qualifications. What they don’t realise is that the coding bit is simple, deciding what you want to do with the code is the tricky bit!
Great article thanks
Maybe a little mercy and sympathy for a great inspiring lady is warranted. I mean that. Elizabeth Holmes, I pray you get no time in jail. As for the people who may have lost money, they were buying a dream and they go it. I am sure their attorneys and accountants will help all of them even Henry so they come out all right.
This is truly a despicable comment! A “great inspiring lady?” Did you think Bernie Madoff a great inspiring investor?
You claim to be an attorney, yet show profound ignorance of the law. It’s OK to be a complete fraudster and lie to investors over and over and over because people were “buying a dream?” How will these investors come out all right? Hundreds of millions of investors $ were fleeced–is there a magic wand that you can wave and make them “come out all right?” Pathetic, especially for an attorney.
EH is not a great lady, a horrible person, and I hope she rots in prison for a very long time. Let’s hope the prosecutors are “lawyers for life” and EH gets life!
As the article so truly says, con artists have been with us forever. If only Elizabeth had stuck to hawking something like Pirelli’s Miracle Elixir she wouldn’t be facing years in the slammer.
https://youtu.be/4jAvUNwaXyE
Or candles that smell like her punani!
“If Elizabeth Holmes hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent her — and in some ways, we did.” Unlike Spanx, Holmes high tech wonder failed despite an awful lot of other people’s money (not hers). Her stellar ability to act makes her one of the best conwomen in history. As a sociopath she ranks well with the train of money death behind her, at least not people except for bruised egos.
Vanity Fair for the Digital Age.
Do not pass go, go directly to jail.
Several years ago I was asked by investors for the opinion about her technology. My answer was: this technology is badly needed but we don’t know if it exists. Without independent side by side comparison etc this is just writing on the paper and paper is very patient.
Entertaining, but the same kind pf hustle that Elizabeth Holmes represents. Nearly all grifters have beauty, charm and lying skills. Hilary lacked beauty and charm, but was a consummate liar. Her husband could lie with the best but only had the looks and charm to attract women and men who were attracted to men. Nixon was like Hilary, all liar and no looks or charm. The successful liar is one who can fool nearly everyone. That was Holmes lacked, she could only convince other liars and manipulators.
The one great weakness of grifters is their gullibility, especially towards their own lies. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Chaves, Castro, both Roosevelts, virtually all politicians and great men and women in every field, especially in acting, have that weakness in abundance. Another is deep-seated pathology particularly toward their victims.
She has invented a patent jail avoidance device , a miniaturised version of herself . Allegedly