I have a complex regard for Haidt because on the one hand, his research is imaginative, well-designed and supports a lot of his basic conclusions. On the other hand, he's all about I used to be a liberal until they ignored my conclusions now I am SYNNNNDROMMMMME

Haidt's fundamental argument is "Western liberal thought is an anomaly across humanity, therefore we should be more accepting of conservatives." Compare and contrast with neoliberalism: "Western liberal thought is an anomaly across humanity, that's why we run the fucking planet, bitchez." I think liberals and conservatives are way too wrapped around the wheel justifying their social mores, which is kind of Haidt's point. Haidt is one of those people wrapped around the wheel, which is why he's controversial.

I will also say that there's a real need for both sides of the culture wars to scour the field for swords rather than plowshares. To whit:

The post shows how three very bad ideas were nurtured on Tumblr, around 2013, and then escaped into progressive online communities (and ultimately into progressive real-world communities such as university campuses), leading to a sharp rise in signs of depression, anxiety, and hopelessness that was most pronounced in young women on the left.

Okay, what are the "three very bad ideas?"

1. What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker

    2. Always trust your feelings

    3. Life is a battle between good people and evil people. 

That's too general to be useful and is dismissive of a whole lot of nuance. "What doesn't kill you makes you weaker" is a flippant argument against safe spaces, which are valuable in therapy and divisive in general society. But there's always going to be a give and take over defining the square. The thing nobody wants to talk about regarding campuses is that it's a captive population paying through the absolute nose for a questionable credential before they parachute into an economy that has never been so challenging for young people since the advent of child labor laws and there will be a lot of jockeying by young people trying to get their money's worth while they still can. And the gay ones? Are gonna wanna not get hassled for being gay. Jon Haidt is ten years older than me, which means he was just starting to teach in an era where manic Christian preachers would stand in the middle of the square and shout "you're going to burn in hell, faggot" through a megaphone at anyone with colored hair. Wait, what am I talking about that shit was still happening in 2019 in the middle of one of the most liberal community colleges in the middle of one of the most liberal west coast states in America.

Haidt himself would agree that people need time to heal from trauma and that people heal slower if the trauma is ongoing. The vast majority of even the most terminally online lefties would agree that not everything needs to be nerfed out for all things and all people at all times. Yet everyone will go to the mattresses warring over the viability of safe spaces because of course we will.

I also think that "internet" and "social media" are very much not the same thing. Social media could be great for kids but the fundamental layout adapted and espoused by every social media company out there (except one) is dark design through and through. I don't think you can credibly say "most studies on social media are bad" and have any credibility when (1) Facebook designed their own studies (2) ran them for their own edification only (3) by their own metrics determined that social media is bad (4) did fucking nothing about it while (5) hiding the results. If RJR pays someone to determine if cigarettes cause cancer, gets told conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer, hides the info that cigarettes cause cancer and continue to sell cigarettes as if they don't cause cancer? Yeah that's negligence. Social media, same same. You'd think they'd run a study or two about how to make social media not an overwhelming net negative. Maybe they have! But if they had any results that said anything other than "go out of business" you'd expect them to trumpet those results from the rooftops.

You're absolutely right about toddlers and iPads. The contention is "how bad is unfettered iPad access for your kid" and pretty much any analysis you run is going to tell you "worse than Youtube would have you believe." Fundamentally, the problem is risk assessment and social media companies' attempts to elide the actual risks.