Part 1 – Through the Reamer Lens

The ethical issue that made me the most uncomfortable in Reamer’s article was professional boundaries when communicating with clients outside of agency-approved channels. It made me uncomfortable because I have already crossed that line once. While working at The Salvation Army as a disaster case manager, I gave several clients my personal cell phone number because I knew I would be leaving the organization soon. I did not want my departure to interrupt the support they were receiving, especially since many were dealing with housing instability and other stressful life circumstances. At the time, it felt like the compassionate thing to do. Looking back, I realize that good intentions do not eliminate ethical risks. Once clients have a personal number, it becomes much harder to maintain clear professional boundaries.

I also experienced another ethical conflict while working at The Salvation Army. The facility director showed blatant favoritism and misappropriated organizational property. When I reported these concerns to Human Resources, I was removed from that location. Although this situation was not about digital boundaries, it taught me that acting ethically is not always rewarded and that doing the right thing can have personal consequences.

I agree with Reamer that technology has made professional boundaries more difficult to maintain. Digital communication makes it easy for professional and personal lives to overlap. His discussion of blurred boundaries resonated with me because of my decision to share my personal phone number with clients. However, I push back on his discussion of privacy settings and digital footprints. He acknowledges that “algorithms used by online social networking platforms may generate intimate-sounding messages… even when they are not initiated directly by a social worker.” Technology changes constantly, and social workers cannot reasonably be expected to understand every algorithm or platform update. A client discovering a worker’s personal information is not always the result of negligence. Sometimes technology exposes information despite a person’s efforts to protect their privacy.

If I had to explain my ethical position to a client today, I would say:

“I want to make sure you always receive consistent, professional support. I communicate with clients through my agency’s approved phone number and email rather than my personal phone. If you need help after business hours or during an emergency, I’ll make sure you have crisis numbers and community resources available. My goal is to support you while maintaining professional boundaries that protect both of us.”

Ethical boundaries are not about being distant from clients. They are about creating relationships that are supportive, professional, and sustainable. While I understand why I shared my personal number, I would handle that situation differently today.

Part 2 Haidt in the Room with Your Clients

Haidt’s evidence focuses on adolescents, but I think the patterns he describes are relevant across all age groups. The population I think about most is adults ages 40–60 because many are raising teenagers while also managing their own technology use. During my internship at the MLK Jr. Collaborative, I worked with adults who checked their phones throughout conversations or became distracted by notifications while discussing housing, employment, or financial concerns. Social media was not the reason they sought services, but constant phone use often interrupted communication and made it harder to stay focused on solving immediate problems.

Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok can keep people constantly connected while increasing stress, comparison, and distraction. Haidt argues that social media contributes to rising anxiety, distraction, and weakened real-world relationships, and those issues do not disappear once someone becomes an adult.

In families, I have seen parents become frustrated because they struggled to get their children’s attention while everyone was focused on a phone or other device. Helping families create healthier boundaries around technology could strengthen communication and reduce conflict. The same concerns apply to couples, where social media can fuel misunderstandings, comparison, or emotional distance. In group settings, heavy social media use may make face-to-face interaction more challenging, so I might need to make group work more structured and intentionally focus on relationship building.

Addiction services make the issue more complicated. Haidt shows how social media platforms are designed to be addictive, which may intensify compulsive behaviors in adults. At the same time, adults often need technology for work, accessing services, communicating with family, and finding community resources. Unlike adolescents, they cannot simply avoid digital platforms, so interventions should focus on healthy and intentional use rather than complete avoidance.

Overall, their evidence holds up across many populations, but applying it outside adolescence requires flexibility and awareness of each client’s developmental stage and environment. Haidt’s research gave me language for something I had already noticed during my field experience: technology is not always the presenting problem, but it can make communication, relationships, and engagement with services more difficult.