For centuries, the Enlightenment’s Age of Reason stood as humanity’s high-water mark: a celebration of logic, evidence, skepticism, and the patient pursuit of truth. Philosophers like Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Kant argued that clear thinking, freed from superstition and mob passion, could lift societies toward progress. Today, that era sometimes feels like ancient history. You’re now more likely to hear the phrase “artificial intelligence” than “human intelligence”, with the line between the two becoming increasingly blurred.
So, has the Age of Reason given way to the Age of AI? Many believe it has, with data and algorithms now challenging the supremacy of rational discourse, critical thinking, and human creativity. The benefits to businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals across the whole spectrum of professions are undoubtedly huge. However, on the flip side, the world’s media has recently been focusing on the negative aspects of AI on society, including the impact of algorithmic addiction, engineered emotional manipulation, and manufactured instantaneous outrage. The evidence, they argue, is no longer anecdotal. Governments around the world are scrambling to protect children from platforms they now openly recognize as toxic. Courts of law have begun holding social media barons accountable for the mental wreckage. Neuroscientists have proved that our brains remain “adolescent”, and therefore susceptible, far longer than we had once believed.
The focus of concern is very much on the meteoric rise of social media, now in the grip of AI algorithms. This has accelerated the spread of fake news, “alternative facts”, conspiracy theories, misinformation, polarized views, confirmation bias, addictive behavior, and simplistic or emotionally charged narratives. Rational debate, it often seems, has been replaced by populist slogans. Ironically, human intelligence is being challenged by a medium that should be making us all more intelligent.
Little wonder that in December 2025, Australia decided to ban all under-16s from social media platforms. The ban followed a study commissioned by the Australian government earlier in the year. This found that 96 percent of children aged 10-15 used social media, and that approximately 70 percent had been exposed to harmful content. This included not only addiction to infinite scrolling, exposure to fake news and misinformation, but also misogynistic material, fight videos, cyberbullying, grooming by adult predators, and sites promoting eating disorders and suicide. The ban on under-16s using social media was a world first, and other countries now appear to be following suit.
Reclaiming the Age of Reason will not be easy. It will require age-appropriate restrictions, parental responsibility, platform redesign and regulation, and a renewed cultural commitment to evidence over emotion. But the alternative is too grim to accept. The Enlightenment taught us that humans can think their way out of darkness. The question now is whether we still remember how
The United Kingdom is actively considering a similar under-16 ban. France, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Spain, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and others are moving in the same direction. These moves are not the product of sudden moral panic. They reflect hard-won recognition that social media’s core design — endless scrolling, algorithmic manipulation, dopamine hits, social tribalism — exploits the still-maturing prefrontal cortex of the brain. Lawmakers are finally accepting what many parents and teachers have asserted for years: Handing developing brains the most powerful attention-capturing technology ever invented is not “free speech”. It is psychological sabotage.
On March 25, a Los Angeles jury delivered the first major courtroom reckoning. In a landmark trial, it found AI giants Meta (Instagram, Facebook) and Google (YouTube) negligent and liable for designing addictive products that caused severe mental-health harm to a young woman (now 20). She had begun using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at 9. The platforms’ infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and attention-grabbing features hooked her, the jury concluded, leading to depression, anxiety, self-harm, body dysmorphic disorder, and social phobia. The jury awarded $6 million in damages, finding the companies acted with “malice, oppression or fraud”. The far-reaching implication of the jury’s verdict is that social media platforms can now be treated as defective products when they deliberately exploit developing brains. Similar lawsuits will undoubtedly follow.
Compounding the problem is new research that demolishes the comforting myth that brains “grow up” by 18 or even 25. In November 2025, University of Cambridge neuroscientists concluded that the human brain stays in its adolescent phase much later than we had once assumed. It was previously thought that adolescence was confined to the teenage years, but the latest research now shows that it continues into the early 30s. This adolescent phase of the brain’s development sees it becoming more efficient, peaking at around 32, but it is also the time when there is the greatest risk for the onset of mental health disorders. Given the correlation between the use of social media and the development of anxiety, depression, insomnia, stress and other psychological problems, maybe governments and lawyers around the world should reconsider the scope of their actions. Logically, if they believe that adolescents are vulnerable to harmful content on social media, they should now take account of the new timescale for adolescence.
Furthermore, if the Cambridge researchers are correct that the brain’s efficiency starts going downhill after the age of 32, maybe older people are even more vulnerable to the evils of social media and its AI algorithms. Certainly, when it comes to reactionary views stirred up by populist misinformation, the older generation often seems to be in the vanguard. Whether it’s swallowing pro-Brexit misinformation in the UK, the confected “China threat” narrative in the United States, or anti-immigrant rhetoric throughout the West, older people seem to be the most susceptible to right-wing social media manipulation, much of it now generated by AI. The case against social media platforms clearly has the potential to grow exponentially.
These developments — government bans, legal liability, brain science research, and populist manipulation — paint a damning picture. Social media has not merely distracted us; it has rewired our brains and shortened our attention spans. Platforms dominated by AI tools such as automated bots, deepfakes, hyperpersonalized content, and polarization algorithms optimize quick-fire engagement rather than truth. Manufactured outrage travels farther and faster than nuanced analysis. Complex issues collapse into simplistic memes and tribal slogans. Critical thinking atrophies while confirmation bias thrives. The result is a society where feelings trump facts, where viral nonsense shapes elections and policy, and where even highly educated adults can behave like dopamine-addicted teenagers.
We see it everywhere: conspiracy theories that defy reason; cancel culture that destroys lives on the basis of screenshots; political discourse reduced to 15-second clips. The Enlightenment ideal of the rational citizen has been replaced by the scrolling consumer whose opinions are manipulated by unseen AI algorithms.
The onward march of AI is irreversible. What human intelligence has to do is embrace AI’s many positives but take steps to minimize its negatives. Australia’s experiment, US jury verdicts, and Cambridge neuroscience findings are hopeful signs. They signal that societies are finally waking up to the cost of outsourcing our attention and our children’s development to profit-driven AI social media giants.
Reclaiming the Age of Reason will not be easy. It will require age-appropriate restrictions, parental responsibility, platform redesign and regulation, and a renewed cultural commitment to evidence over emotion. But the alternative is too grim to accept. The Enlightenment taught us that humans can think their way out of darkness. The question now is whether we still remember how.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
