Gary Vaynerchuk’s Parenting Theory Lets Tech — and Its Investors — Off the Hook
In a recent interview, Vaynchuk dodges responsibility and blames parents for not "whooping" kids.
Influencer and investor Gary “Gary Vee” Vaynerchuk argues social media and AI are tools for empowerment, while lackadaisical parenting — even the decline of corporal punishment — is to blame for society’s problems. It’s a convenient frame from someone who built his wealth and reputation on the platforms he now casts as the solution.
In a recent interview, Vaynerchuk cites “40 years” of lax parenting to explain rising rates of mental illness, in defense of social media. But his timeline doesn’t fit the data. A large national study found that anxiety increased meaningfully from 2008 to 2018, especially among young adults. If the culprit is pre-millennium “participation trophy” culture, why do anxiety trends inflect so sharply in the same era social media becomes ubiquitous?
Let’s look at one of the companies Vaynerchuk has invested in and promoted: Meta. They’re currently facing multiple lawsuits alleging their platforms contribute to harm among minors. Internal documents unsealed by a judge in ongoing litigation reveal that Meta’s own researchers found teens reported improvements in well-being after reducing or stopping use.
Other internal presentations described links between platform use and negative outcomes including sleep disruption, anxiety, and depression. In at least one instance, researchers compared Instagram use to drug addiction. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta scaled back internal studies after identifying troubling findings. The research on the effects of social media on mental health is young, but the red flags are there.
However, we have a much longer track record of evidence regarding one of Vaynerchuk’s solutions — “whooping” children. According to the World Health Organization, “children exposed to corporal punishment are, on average, 24% less likely to be developmentally on track compared to peers who are not exposed. The mental health toll is equally severe. Children subjected to corporal punishment face increased risks of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and emotional instability.”
Vaynerchuk’s playbook is familiar — the institutions which benefit him get a pass, while blame is laid at the feet of “personal responsibility”. We’ve seen the same arguments from the alcohol, tobacco, and gambling industries.
If Vaynerchuk’s account of the past is suspect, his vision of the future is even more so. In the same interview, he predicts the benefits of AI: “There’s a scenario where we go to a four-day work week because of efficiencies and subsidies from the biggest winners in AI … What about all the people that might get inspired by this interview, and get a job in three years that pays them three times more that they’re happy about, because they took the AI surfboard instead of putting their head in the sand?”
Have past productivity gains in the labor force resulted in commensurately increased leisure time or pay? According to the Economic Policy Institute, the answer is no. Workers are 90% more productive than they were in 1979, yet only make 33% more. Hours worked remain flat since the mid 20th century.
Why would AI be any different? The technological efficiencies haven’t benefited workers so far. Are we to believe the enormous capital investment in AI is to achieve higher pay and days off? That assumption is difficult to reconcile with history.
Investors are looking for a return on their money, and they’re not shy about their expectations. Silicon Valley is promising an economy with reduced or even eliminated labor costs — a far cry from Vaynerchuk’s theoretical tripled salaries. Some workers will benefit during a market shift; many more will lose.
It’s easier to blame parents than to interrogate troubling systemic issues — especially while profiting from those systems. Investors and tech evangelists like Gary Vaynerchuk have strong incentives to emphasize personal responsibility over platform design or capital allocation.
The evidence on corporal punishment is clear. The evidence on social media is far from reassuring. Before embracing a backwards nostalgia for harsher discipline, we should be honest about who benefits from that framing — and who bears the consequences.