Part 1: AI Ethics, and Confidentiality
The ethical tension that I found most uncomfortable in Reamer’s (2023) article was balancing the desire to embrace advances in technology and utilize AI in social work while also maintaining privacy and confidentiality.
As social workers, we work with vulnerable populations who trust us with deeply personal information. We have an ethical obligation to protect that information. As a child welfare case manager for the state, I know that my documentation can influence important safety decisions that can alter a family’s future. That makes protecting confidentiality feel even more significant when considering the use of AI tools.
I have already encountered a version of this ethical tension in my own work. My agency sent out a department-wide email a few months ago stating that employees could face termination if they were caught using generative AI, and that a policy regarding AI would be released later. To my knowledge, that policy has not yet been released. I understand the agency’s concern about protecting confidential information, but the response made me realize how little guidance social workers have on using AI ethically. Instead of teaching safe and responsible use, the message focused on avoiding it altogether. That experience reinforced my belief that our profession needs clearer ethical standards for AI rather than simply discouraging its use. I agree with Reamer (2023) that protecting client confidentiality must always come first, but I also believe our profession should focus on developing ethical ways to use AI rather than simply avoiding it.
I see tremendous opportunities for AI to improve efficiency and reduce administrative work. At the same time, I am uncertain about whether these systems can truly keep sensitive client information secure. As social workers, we are held responsible for maintaining confidentiality, even though many of the technical safeguards are out of our hands. Data breaches occur in technology systems every day, even within organizations that have strong cybersecurity teams. How much effort is enough? What safeguards should we be expected to verify, and when do we have to trust that our agencies or the AI providers have done their part? Those questions are what make this ethical issue so uncomfortable for me.
Part 2: Social Media and Child Welfare
Haidt and Rausch’s (2026) evidence was not surprising to me at all. I work in child welfare, and I see the effects that social media has on adolescents every day. However, adolescents are not the only population that I work with who are affected. I have also seen the negative effects that social media addiction can have on parents.
I have seen distracted parenting that I believe was fueled by excessive social media use, leading to concerns such as inadequate supervision, and, in some cases, increased conflict within the home. I have also worked with parents who lack an actual support system because all of their relationships exist through social media. As technology use has increased, I have seen some parents become more isolated, spending less time building meaningful, in-person relationships. I have even encountered situations where parents spent hours scrolling through TikTok instead of attending to household responsibilities or their children’s needs, contributing to environmental neglect.
At the same time, I have seen technology create positive opportunities for families. Parents use it to communicate with their children’s schools and medical providers, access community resources, apply for jobs, and stay connected with supportive family members. Those are important benefits that should not be overlooked. Because of that, I think Haidt’s argument becomes more complicated when applied to the families that I serve. The issue is not simply that technology exists, but how it is designed and how it is used.
I think that Haidt and Rausch’s (2026) research raises important concerns, particularly regarding algorithms that are intentionally designed to keep people engaged for as long as possible. When those designs contribute to unhealthy patterns of use, especially among vulnerable families, the consequences can be significant. I believe technology companies should be held more accountable for the ways their platforms affect users because I have seen firsthand how excessive social media use can negatively impact parenting and, ultimately, children’s safety. As a child welfare worker, this evidence reminds me that assessing a family’s technology use should be a part of understanding their strengths, challenges, and daily functioning rather than assuming it is either entirely harmful or entirely beneficial.
References
Haidt, J., & Rausch, Z. (2026). The case against social media: Seven lines of evidence. After Babel. https://substack.com/@jonathanhaidt/note/p-193691460
Reamer, F. G. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Social Work: Emerging Ethical Issues. International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 20(2), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.55521/10-020-205
I really liked that you discussed how social media affects parents because I think that population is sometimes overlooked when we talk about technology and mental health. Most conversations focus on adolescents, but I agree that excessive social media use can also impact parenting, family relationships, and even child safety. One point from Haidt’s TED Talk that came to mind while reading your post was his idea that humans are “ultrasocial” and need meaningful, face-to-face relationships. It made me wonder if some of the isolation you described among parents is also contributing to the challenges you see in child welfare. I also appreciated that you acknowledged the benefits of technology because I don’t think social media is entirely harmful. As you said, I think it comes down to helping families develop healthier ways of using it rather than eliminating it altogether.
You presented how children are being affected by technology and how it can be positive and negative. As Haidt and Rausch mentioned, technology is a powerful tool, but there needs to be ways to incorporate it for children so that it does not leave them vulnerable to technology and have parents actively involved in their use. This can help prevent negative factors in their early years, where development is crucial compared to waiting until later years. I agree with Haidt’s idea of presenting technology to children in later years to stimulate interactions among themselves. It can help adolescents experience less isolation and promote a healthier learning environment.