Podcast
Scrolling 2 Death
Hosted by Nicki Petrossi · EN
Scrolling 2 Death is a podcast for parents who are worried about social media. Through interviews with parents and experts, we explore smartphone use, screen time, school-issued devices, social media use and so much more.
41episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial: Beyond the Headlines (with Kaley’s lead attorney Mark Lanier)
1w ago00:56:20Summary readyLegendary trial attorney Mark Lanier joins Nicki and Sarah for an emotional, behind-the-scenes look at the landmark social media addiction trial that ended in a jury verdict against Meta and YouTube.For nearly two months, we sat inside the Los Angeles courtroom documenting every moment — filling 589 pages of notes as grieving parents, advocates, reporters, jurors, and teams of attorneys battled over one central question: did these platforms knowingly build products that addict children, like Kaley?In this deeply personal interview, Mark breaks down exactly how the case was won, why Snapchat and TikTok settled just before trial, and what the jury ultimately decided about Kaley, the young woman at the center of the case. He also reveals shocking moments the public never saw — defense witnesses backing out, chaos inside the courthouse, the strategy behind avoiding a billion-dollar “runaway verdict,” and the cross-examinations that changed everything.The episode also revisits some of the most unforgettable lines from the trial, responding directly to claims made in court by executives and attorneys from Meta and YouTube.But this conversation is bigger than one verdict. It’s about children, addiction, grief, corporate power, and the parents fighting back against trillion-dollar tech companies. Mark shares what he believes this case means for the future of Big Tech accountability, why he calls it a defining trial of the 21st century, and the message he hopes families around the world take away from Kaley's story.The episode closes with a powerful discussion about parenting, love, and why human connection may be the strongest defense families have against platforms designed to exploit vulnerability.If you followed this trial in real time — or if you’re just beginning to understand what these platforms are doing to children — this is an episode you won’t forget.Here's a link to the actual verdict forms that the jury completed.Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.
SummaryThe Canvas Breach: 275 Million People at Risk (with attorney Andy Liddell)
2w ago00:24:34Summary readyWhen parents log into Canvas, they expect homework assignments and grades — not ransom notes.In this urgent episode, I spoke with attorney Andrew Liddell about the massive alleged breach involving Instructure and its learning management platform, Canvas, reportedly affecting thousands of schools and millions of students, teachers, and college faculty worldwide.Here's a full list of the 8,000+ schools which were affected.Andy breaks down:What Canvas is and why it’s used in so many schoolsHow enormous amounts of student data are collected and sharedWhat allegedly happened in the breachWhy hackers targeted this informationWhat exposed school data could mean for families long-termWhy schools are becoming “soft targets” for cyberattacksWhat parents should do right now if their child’s school uses CanvasThe conversation also goes beyond this single breach and explores a larger question: Have schools quietly normalized mass surveillance of children through EdTech?Andy explains why privacy isn’t just about secrecy — it’s about childhood itself.“Privacy is the soil in which we grow.”This episode is essential listening for parents, teachers, school administrators, and anyone concerned about the growing role of Big Tech in education.Contact Andy's team at edtech.law to find out more about this lawsuit and others. Here's a direct link to their lawsuit against Instructure.
SummaryThis Isn't a Parenting Problem (with Glen Pounder of Scouting America)
3w ago00:32:16Summary readyWhen kids are harmed online, the first question people ask is: “Where were the parents?”In this episode of Scrolling 2 Death, we challenge that instinct—and expose why it is doing more harm than good.Scrolling 2 Death host Nicki Petrossi is joined by Glen Pounder, Executive Vice President and Chief Safeguarding Officer at Scouting America, to unpack one of the most persistent myths in child safety: that better parenting can prevent online harm.Drawing from his 30-year career combating crimes against children—and his recent article “The Comfort of Blame – and the Limits of Even the Best Parenting”—Glen shares what he’s seen firsthand: families who did everything right… and still had children targeted, groomed, and exploited online.This conversation goes beyond surface-level advice and into the uncomfortable truth:Why parent blame is so appealing—and so dangerousHow exploitation actually happens, even in attentive householdsThe hidden cost of shame, silence, and misplaced responsibilityAnd why this is not a parenting failure—it’s a systems failureIn the wake of major legal battles involving Meta and YouTube, this episode asks a harder question:Who really benefits when we keep blaming parents instead of holding platforms accountable?Because while families are being told to “do more,” tech companies continue to design environments that make harm easier—and harder to detect.If we want to actually protect kids, we have to move beyond blame… and start demanding better systems.#MyFriendToo Resource for Youth
SummaryDoes i-Ready Work? A Neuroscientist Weighs In (with Dr. Jared Cooney-Horvath)
4w ago00:29:46Summary readyIn this eye-opening conversation, Nicki Petrossi sits down with neuroscientist Jared Cooney-Horvath to unpack the claims behind i-Ready—one of the most widely used EdTech tools in U.S. classrooms. What starts as a discussion of Nicki’s data privacy lawsuit quickly expands into a deeper investigation: does i-Ready actually help kids learn?Jared breaks down the startling lack of credible, peer-reviewed research supporting i-Ready’s effectiveness, explaining how most claims rely on weak comparisons or company-backed studies. He reveals why “time on task” can be misleading, how EdTech companies shape persuasive narratives without solid evidence, and why human-led instruction consistently outperforms digital tools when it comes to real learning.Together, they connect the dots between data privacy concerns and academic outcomes—arguing that if a product isn’t meaningfully improving learning, schools must question why it’s being used at all. The episode also explores the growing national momentum among parents, teachers, and districts pushing back on excessive screen time and demanding accountability from EdTech companies.If you’ve ever wondered what’s really behind the tools your child is required to use in school, this conversation gives you the data—and the questions—you need to start pushing for answers.Jared's Substack: i-Ready: 13 Million Students, Zero Meaningful EvidenceParent-Teacher i-Ready Resource
SummaryMINI EPISODE: LAUSD Passes Landmark School Screen Policy (with Lila Byock)
Apr 2200:07:42Summary readyIn this mini-episode of Scrolling 2 Death, Nicki brought in Lila Byock to break down a major victory: the Los Angeles Unified School District has unanimously passed a sweeping new technology policy that limits screen use for students. After months of relentless advocacy from parents and teachers, the district is eliminating devices for its youngest learners, restricting platforms like YouTube, and setting clear screen time boundaries. They discuss what passed and how this moment could spark a nationwide shift in how schools use technology—and how you can bring these changes to your own district.LAUSD's new policy linked hereSign up at Schools Beyond Screens
SummaryI've sued i-Ready | Answering your questions (with attorney Andy Liddell)
Apr 600:17:37Summary readySo…I’ve sued another EdTech company. Here's a direct link to information on the lawsuit.This time, it’s Curriculum Associates — the multi-billion-dollar maker of i-Ready, used by more than 14 million children in grades K–8, including my own.In this episode, I break down why we’ve filed a lawsuit alleging that Curriculum Associates’ core business model depends on harvesting massive amounts of student data, monetizing it, and allegedly sharing children’s personal information with dozens of third parties for commercial purposes. We further allege the company builds deeply invasive psychological and behavioral profiles on students — profiles that can follow them and potentially harm them.I never consented to this. And neither did millions of parents.Sending our children to public school is a legal right. We should not have to expose them to commercial data trafficking just to get an education.With the average school district using thousands of EdTech tools each year — and each child accessing dozens — the question isn’t whether this is happening. The question is whether parents ever gave meaningful, informed consent.Joining me is Andy Liddell, attorney with the EdTech Law Center, to answer the questions flooding in from parents and teachers:What exactly are we alleging?What data is actually being collected?Is academic growth tracking the same as data mining?Can parents opt out?Is this a class action?What can teachers do?And what do we say to critics who claim this is just fear-mongering?If you’re a parent, teacher, or school leader, this conversation is one you cannot afford to miss.If you’re interested in learning more or potentially joining an EdTech-related lawsuit, visit: edtech.law.Because this isn’t just about i-Ready.It’s about whether our children’s data belongs to them — or to corporations.
Summary
[THE VERDICT] The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial
Mar 2700:39:52Summary readyOn March 25, 2026, after eight days of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict in the first bellwether trial against Meta and YouTube.The verdict: The jury ruled in favor of Kaley on all counts. Scroll down to the bottom of this description for the full verdict.This week, we take you inside the final, nerve-wracking days in the hallway and courtroom — the jury questions about expert testimony, deleted accounts, Instagram usage, punitive damages, and the moment they told the judge they were deadlocked with one defendant.We walk through what each question meant, what it revealed about the jury’s thinking, and how both sides responded. You’ll hear what happened in real time as families waited, attorneys speculated, and the stakes became crystal clear.We’re joined by Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center to break down:What the verdict actually meansWhether an appeal is likelyWhy early bellwether cases often shape — but don’t decide — the larger warWhat happens next in the thousands of cases still moving forwardBecause this was never just about one family.It the most powerful tech companies in the world… versus families. And this verdict is the accelerator of justice.The trials continue. Thousands of families. Dozens of states. School districts. The pressure is building. We’ll continue to be inside the courtroom translating it all for parents everywhere.The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.Are you willing to take action against Big Tech? Join us in D.C.! Fill out this form.THE VERDICTMETAWas Meta negligent in the design or operation of Instagram? YESWas Meta’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YESDid Meta know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of Instagram was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YESDid Meta know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YESDid Meta fail to adequately warn of the danger? YESWould a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YESWas Meta's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YESYOUTUBEWas YouTube negligent in the design or operation of YouTube? YESWas YouTube's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YESDid YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of YouTube was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YESDid YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YESDid YouTube fail to adequately warn of the danger? YESWould a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YESWas YouTube's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YESTHE DAMAGESA. What are KGM's damages? $3,000,000B. What percentage of responsibility for K.G.M.’s harm do you assign to each of the following? 70% Meta30% YouTubeC. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that Meta acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YESD. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that YouTube acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YESPUNITIVE DAMAGES: $3,000,000 ($2.1M to Meta, $900K to YouTube)
Summary
[WEEK 7 RECAP] The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial: Final Witnesses. Closings. Deliberations Begin.
Mar 1501:04:13Summary readyThis week on The Heat is On…Big Tech on Trial, we reached a turning point.After weeks of testimony, we heard from the final witnesses — including Meta’s paid medical expert, internal researchers, and YouTube leadership. New details emerged about deleted watch history data, internal warnings about teen risk, and what company executives knew about under-13 enforcement.Then came closing arguments.Mark Lanier argued that platform design targeted Kaley from a young age. Attorneys for Meta and YouTube pushed back, claiming there is no proven causal link between social media and mental health struggles, for Kaley or anyone else.Friday morning, the jury began deliberating.Now nine jurors must decide:Were these platforms negligently designed in ways that substantially contributed to Kaley’s anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts? Or not?We’re inside the courtroom translating what this case means for parents everywhere — because these trials aren't just about one child. It could shape the future of accountability for TikTok, YouTube, Meta, and Snap Inc..Verdict watch has begun.The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.
Summary
[WEEK 6 RECAP] The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial: A Psychologist, A Whistleblower + Plaintiff Rests Their Case
Mar 801:12:28Summary readyThis week inside the courtroom, science took center stage — and the stakes were higher than ever.Dr. Kara Bagot, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who helped develop the NIH’s landmark ABCD brain study, spent five days on the stand. She testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Kaley developed social media addiction — and that YouTube acted as the “gateway,” beginning at just six years old. She walked the jury through the platform features that fuel compulsive use: infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithms, notifications, likes, filters, Shorts, Reels, and the lack of meaningful age verification.Under intense cross-examination from Meta and YouTube’s attorneys, Dr. Bagot held her ground — insisting on context over yes-or-no soundbites. Jurors watched closely. When she was finally excused, there as a quiet applause.Then came former Meta safety executive and whistleblower Arturo Bejar. He testified that by 2019, Meta researchers had identified addiction as a serious issue — but leadership discouraged even using the word, replacing it with “problematic use.” He described internal knowledge of harmful design choices, ineffective safety tools, and what he called “dark patterns,” including the infamous “blue button” that discouraged user reporting.Arturo also testified that age verification is not technically difficult — and that Meta could remove millions of under-13 users if it chose to.Next up was child safety expert and mom, Brooke Istook. Brooke powerfully described the generational tech gap, Instagram's growth team promoting FINSTAs, misleading safety promises, and the no-win position families face trying to supervise platforms designed to outmaneuver them.By week’s end, the Plaintiffs rested their case and the Defense began calling witnesses in the form of video depositions.Meanwhile, outside this courtroom, the pressure is mounting. Big tech lobbyists have infiltrated important online safety legislation and 33 new families across 19 states have joined the consolidated JCCP litigation, with Roblox newly added to the complaints.Thousands of families. Dozens of states. And now jurors — everyday people — watching some of the richest companies in the world fight a single family over what caused a young girl’s harm.These are the tobacco trials of our generation.We’re inside the courtroom translating it all in real time — joined this week by Christine Almadjian, legislative consultant and courtroom observer, and Lennon Torres of Heat Initiative — bringing you the moments that mattered, the legal context behind the strategy, and what it means for families everywhere.Because this fight isn’t abstract.It’s about the apps in our kids’ pockets.It’s about truth, justice and accountability.And it’s about whether these companies will finally be forced to change.We stand with families.The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.
Summary
[BONUS EPISODE] The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial: Meta Whistleblower Brian Boland
Mar 500:49:36Summary readyWhat really happens inside one of the most powerful companies in the world?This week, we sit down with Brian Boland, a former senior leader at Facebook (pre-Meta), who spent more than a decade helping build and scale Facebook and Instagram's advertising systems — and later testified in court about what he saw.Brian was in the courtroom for nearly five hours. In this candid conversation, he pulls back the curtain on:What it feels like to testify under oath against your former companyHow Meta’s internal culture shifted after whistleblowers like Frances Haugen spoke outThe reality of Mark Zuckerberg’s power inside the company — and why the board can’t remove himHow algorithms are built, tested, and optimized — and why even engineers don’t fully understand their long-term impactsWhether Meta is truly incentivized to limit teen usageThe truth about ad revenue from minorsHow accurate age-estimation technology really is — and why that mattersWhat whistleblowing actually costs the people who do itBrian doesn’t call for the end of social media. In fact, he believes these platforms could be built to strengthen communities. But he’s clear: the current incentives — profit, growth, daily active users — drive decisions that put engagement above safety.He also shares what he told executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, before he left — and the response he received.If you’ve ever wondered:Are these platforms intentionally habit-forming?Do they really know how young users are?Could they reduce harm if they wanted to?Why don’t more insiders speak out?This episode is essential listening.It’s a rare, inside look at how power, profit, algorithms, and accountability collide — and what it might actually take to force change.The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.Research mentioned in the episode: Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model (Raffoul article)
Summary