Chicago’s Morning Answer host Mike Koolidge, filling in for Dan Proft, welcomed Brad Littlejohn, a fellow with American Compass, to discuss his recent essay in Plough’s Common Place magazine examining what he describes as a libertarian blind spot within conservative thinking on technology policy. Koolidge introduced the piece by outlining three commonly used arguments Littlejohn challenges as not genuinely conservative: the comparison to Socrates’ ancient skepticism toward writing, the claim that technological progress cannot be reversed, and the suggestion that consumers dissatisfied with a given technology should simply decline to purchase it.
Littlejohn argued that many parents have found AI chatbots and similar features quietly integrated into their children’s devices without meaningful consultation or consent, sometimes engaging in inappropriate or emotionally manipulative interactions, and said this reality undermines the notion that a genuinely functioning free market exists around children’s technology. He argued conservatives have too often avoided serious engagement with technology governance due to reliance on oversimplified rhetorical shortcuts rather than careful analysis of tradeoffs.
Addressing the “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it” argument, Littlejohn said the framing ignores powerful network effects that leave individual families with little practical choice, citing a recent animated film in which a child struggles to make friends simply because every other child in her neighborhood already owns a personal device. He argued that this dynamic effectively compels parents to adopt technologies they might otherwise resist, undermining the idea that families are making fully voluntary, independent decisions.
On the Socratic objection to writing, Littlejohn clarified that Socrates’ original concern was not a rejection of writing outright, but an observation that new technologies inevitably involve tradeoffs, potentially eroding capacities such as memory and face-to-face conversation even as they expand human capability in other ways. He argued that a similar framework should guide evaluation of artificial intelligence, allowing society to pursue AI’s genuine benefits while remaining attentive to potential downsides, particularly for children.
Littlejohn outlined specific policy interventions he believes could restore meaningful parental authority over children’s technology use, including requiring that minors be legally unable to independently enter into app terms-of-service agreements, positioning parents rather than children as the actual contracting party. He also argued that hardcore pornography should be treated similarly to alcohol or tobacco, with sellers bearing responsibility for preventing access by minors rather than placing the entire burden on individual parental monitoring. Littlejohn acknowledged that reversing widespread technology adoption is considerably harder once it has become deeply embedded in daily life, but pointed to a growing movement, including among elite schools in Silicon Valley itself, to remove classroom technology and return to more traditional, technology-free learning environments.
Littlejohn closed by distinguishing between AI applications appropriate for adults and those potentially harmful to children’s development, arguing that reliance on AI tools for tasks like homework or even navigating early romantic relationships risks depriving young people of the difficult cognitive and emotional experiences necessary for healthy adult development. Koolidge referenced a viral video illustrating the concern, showing a child struggling to hold a basic conversation without relying on an AI chatbot intermediary, and encouraged listeners to seek out Littlejohn’s writing on Substack and through American Compass.