Murmuration’s Chief Marketing and Operating Officer, Michael Slaby, sat down with Emma Lembke, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of the LOG OFF Movement, Co-Founder of Design It For Us, and Director of Gen Z Advocacy at the Sustainable Media Center, for The Exchange, our interview series featuring influential thought leaders, organizers, advocates, and others who are shaping the future of civic life.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Michael Slaby: I am talking to you at a really interesting time for Murmuration, as we are publishing a new report in a couple of weeks on how Americans, including many young people, are rethinking technology, connection, and what they want to reclaim from digital life. So, I couldn’t be happier about getting to speak with you today. To kick us off, could you introduce yourself, share your work at the Sustainable Media Center, and tell us how the LOG OFF Movement came to be?
Emma Lembke: It is an honor and a pleasure to be in conversation with you. I’m genuinely very blown away by and inspired by the work that you all do to equip leaders and advocates like myself with the tools and services necessary to make meaningful change, which is what we all want and what we all deserve. I have dedicated the past six or so years of my life to helping empower younger generations to build a healthier relationship with their technology, specifically starting with social media, but now also encompassing AI.
I finally asked, “What exactly am I doing? I value control. How am I giving so much of my control up to these apps? And why do I feel so bad?” That moment made me pause and reflect, and I decided to take more time to think and reflect upon my own usage so I could regain a healthy relationship with technology.
The reason I got started in the tech advocacy space is largely due to my lived experience. I got social media when I was 12 years old. I was ironically one of the last in my friend group to join these platforms, specifically Instagram, and I remember seeing each one of my friends decrease the amount of time they were spending in communication and connection with me, and taking that time and energy and putting it towards taking pictures to post online, counting followers and likes, and posting at the right time. I eventually reached a breaking point in ninth grade, where I had the buzz of a notification and a Pavlovian response to grab for it. I finally asked, “What exactly am I doing? I value control. How am I giving so much of my control up to these apps? And why do I feel so bad?” That moment made me pause and reflect, and I decided to take more time to think and reflect upon my own usage so I could regain a healthy relationship with technology.
I deleted social media for a little bit, and what I discovered was that I had a ton of questions. I wanted to look up what online communities were available for young people who were annoyed or frustrated by social media, how social media impacts younger generations, and how a young person’s mental health is impacted by increased scrolling. I found a plethora of emerging research showing the negative side effects of using social media more, but I couldn’t find a community for young people. So, at the beginning of my senior year of high school, I wanted to create that community for young people to talk about ways to build healthier habits, find community with one another, and push for changes that we wanted to see in the online world. And that was called the LOG OFF Movement.
Michael Slaby: That experience of logging off before it became a movement came with a cost. When you remove yourself from social spaces, you’re also giving something up, because these tools work because you’re getting something—a relationship to be had, a space to be in, and greater connectivity.
I’m curious what you’re seeing in that movement, how you’re seeing young people seeking ways of building healthy relationships, using tools, demanding better agency, and becoming better, stronger users. Do you see young people making different design choices or different user choices, or finding spaces that are healthier?
Emma Lembke: When I started my advocacy at the end of high school, I was working with young people to help them develop a level of awareness. A lot of young people felt like they were a part of the system, a cog in the system, and they felt like the relationship they had was a bad one, and they wanted the tools to develop a better one. But they hadn’t really gotten to the point where they could articulate that.
Gen Z is such a scrappy generation, and young people are finding new and interesting ways to unplug. Whether that is developing a third space, putting more energy and effort into building in-person connections and prioritizing them…
In those six years, my advocacy has taken many twists and turns. I think there has been a major uprising, especially within Gen Z, of a newly developed sense of awareness. More people are feeling that they have permission to not only make changes, but to begin to develop those healthy relationships themselves. A lot of young people within my community have been very creative. Gen Z is such a scrappy generation, and young people are finding new and interesting ways to unplug. Whether that is developing a third space, putting more energy and effort into building in-person connections and prioritizing them, or playing around with downloading screen-time-blocking apps like Opal. I think that a healthier relationship with technology looks very, very different to every single user. It’s been very, very exciting from an advocacy perspective to see more voices enter the mix wanting to talk about building a healthy relationship and feeling empowered to do so.
Michael Slaby: Social pressure is real, and the emotional burden of losing connections if you leave social media can be especially significant for young people. You just mentioned third spaces, and your new “Forks Up, Phones Down” campaign takes a similarly simple approach: put the phone down and connect with the people around you, starting with a meal. It reminded me of something Amanda Litman shared with us recently—how impactful having people over for dinner was in building connection and community at a time when those things felt so far away. Why did you want to focus on something as ordinary as sharing a meal?
Emma Lembke: That question makes me really happy. When we came up with the idea for “Forks Up, Phones Down,” we really just wanted to connect with more people around building healthy relationships with technology. But it is very, very hard to come to a consensus around proper tech usage, so I told my team we needed to zoom in, avoid the ambiguity at the macro level, and focus on something so easy and actionable that every individual could take that step instantly. Building greater tech intentionality starts with one step at a time. One thing can compound and build upon another.
So we identified one super unifying and common frustration across generations: fubbing, the intentional act of not paying attention to someone when you’re with them, especially at the dinner table. I came up with the idea out of personal frustration and then went to every single person I knew and asked if they agreed it was a shared frustration. I think it was a great place to start, especially at a time when, for centuries, we’ve connected with one another at the dinner table. And the dinner table is a really simple way to nourish relationships built on trust, accountability, depth, and emotional support.
Michael Slaby: Logging off can seem like a later step in a process of first recognizing how these systems are designed to keep us engaged. Do you see that awareness becoming more of a default for young people, or is it still something they have to discover and learn for themselves?
I’m pro-tech intentionality. I’m focused on cultivating greater tech intentionality so that each individual can determine what a healthy relationship with technology means for them.
Emma Lembke: I think it depends on the generation. And I want to make it abundantly clear that I’m not anti-technology. A lot of people hear about the log off movement, they hear about my work, and they think that I’m anti-technology. Absolutely not. I’m pro-tech intentionality. I’m focused on cultivating greater tech intentionality so that each individual can determine what a healthy relationship with technology means for them. One of my favorite researchers, Rachel Janfaza, always talks about Gen Z 1.0 and Gen Z 2.0, separated by COVID, which I think is a very important distinction as far as lived and educational experience of technology.
With Gen Z, I think there is an inherent understanding that there is an issue. Almost every young person I’ve talked to is at least somewhat aware that they probably shouldn’t be scrolling as much, or that social media could impact kids’ lives more than they want it to. I think that’s partly because we grew up alongside social media as it grew and expanded its reach. That experience has allowed us to cultivate a deeper understanding of it. Awareness is the first step, and tech intentionality is further along in the process, but it’s much easier for me to work with Gen Z to build those healthy relationships because I don’t have to do as much convincing.
Michael Slaby: At Murmuration, we do a lot of listening at scale, and what we hear from younger Americans is that they seem to have a healthy skepticism about digital tools and, more broadly, AI. You’ve talked about Gen Z. Gen Alpha (depending on how we draw the lines between generations) is now about to enter civic life, having grown up with AI. So, I’m curious, do you see differences in how those younger generations come into this conversation?
Emma Lembke: I think the issue area has shifted. For a lot of the Gen Alpha individuals I’ve talked to, their focus is much more expansive than just social media, because they have inherited a much more difficult technological world, and I think there is a healthy level of skepticism there. There’s an inherent understanding that older generations didn’t act productively—they failed Gen Z. They didn’t protect them from big tech and allowed them to be a guinea pig generation. We’re now seeing the negative ramifications, whether it’s the impact on our democratic systems, trust in institutions, our ability to access information, or our ability to connect with one another.
At the same time, I think Gen Z and Gen Alpha understand that there are obvious benefits to AI: connective, expressive, and exploratory capabilities. Unlike older generations, they don’t exist in this space of “let’s go back to the good old days” or “let’s ban all social media.” They understand that the genie’s out of the bottle and lean into the realism in a way that only they can. I feel bad for Gen Z because we let them down with social media, but Gen Alpha we really let down—we not only didn’t address social media, but we’ve also allowed the beginning of chatbots and LLMs to impact them in a whole new set of ways. But I do think Gen Alpha will be the more capable generation at understanding how to move forward.
Michael Slaby: There is still agency here. Rather than walking away from these spaces or looking nostalgically toward a past that didn’t really exist, how can we be more explicit about what we want from technology and fight to make these spaces healthier? As AI becomes more embedded in our lives and social media continues to evolve, what’s giving you hope about what’s possible?
But at my core, I really do believe in the power of people. I drive my hope from people fighting for change and refusing to accept the status quo…Every act of resistance matters in shifting the status quo from harm toward a brighter future.
Emma Lembke: I’m a very hopeful person, which I think a lot of people would not expect because tech advocacy can often feel like a David and Goliath situation, with many setbacks. And the current state of AI does not necessarily help with that hopefulness. But at my core, I really do believe in the power of people. I drive my hope from people fighting for change and refusing to accept the status quo—whether that’s an advocate working to design better spaces or a literal 13-year-old girl who chooses not to use her phone at the dinner table.
Every act of resistance matters in shifting the status quo from harm toward a brighter future. So I encourage, listeners and readers to think really critically to themselves and like what I’ve been doing about how not only to like support these macro and micro acts of resistance, but like how to personally engage in it yourself and whatever lights your fire. It is those who decide to resist that alluring pull of the “what is” in pursuit of “what could be” who give me profound hope that humanity can usher us out of a darker moment in history with social media and AI and into a new chapter where we can beautifully coexist with technology, reap its benefits, and design social media and AI in ways that allow us to thrive rather than simply increase the profits of a select few.
Michael Slaby: One of the challenges of the power imbalance between a platform and a young person is that expecting a kid to resist the tide is a lot to ask. Meta just recently settled one of the big lawsuits against them. Now, whether that settlement ends up being them buying their way out of responsibility, time will tell. But built into the settlement is this idea that there are design changes that could create healthier spaces and give young people more guardrails. Does that give you hope that advocacy and institutions can begin to make this a less asymmetric battle—and hold tech companies accountable for creating healthier environments?
I think lawmakers need to step up to the plate and begin to actively and critically and meaningfully regulate.
Emma Lembke: I believe that the settlement is more nuanced than people think. I agree that time will tell if design changes will be made, but the fact that media news sources are reporting on it and so many people are excited about the potential for design changes makes me optimistic. Going back to when I was that 12-year-old getting on Instagram, to say to a child, “Here is a trillion-dollar corporation, and they’re going to create this expensive algorithm that’s going to try to hook you and maximize the time that you spend on your device. But you should push back, build better habits, and put your phone down at dinner”—that is a lot to ask. While I advocate for micro changes at the individual level, I do think that the ultimate responsibility and onus needs to fall on the tech company, the corporations who are making active choices.
I think lawmakers need to step up to the plate and begin to actively and critically and meaningfully regulate. One of the design changes they were talking about making was not sending notifications during school hours. That is one very easy choice that could have been made at the beginning that is being triggered by a gigantic settlement, which is very discouraging. Companies need to be held responsible and make better choices, but a way to do that is to pressure, regulate, and pass bills and laws. I think there has to be a myriad of responses from different stakeholders to be able to truly hold these companies accountable. It is discouraging that design changes are conditional upon seventeen billion dollar settlements.
Michael Slaby: Which, by the way, is about the profit they made last quarter. I love the way that you talk about the idea that technology may be inevitable, but the outcomes are not. How do we move from seeing ourselves as passive users of these tools to recognizing our collective responsibility—and our agency—to shape how they affect our communities and society?
Emma Lembke: So many people come to me and ask, “How can I get involved?” I truly believe there are people waiting to know what to do next, and there are so many ways to engage at both the micro and macro levels. You can develop individual habits, reach out to your lawmakers, or join the emerging coalitions doing this work. There are so many actionable steps and so many levers we can pull.
I really love your framing that big tech has fed us this myth of inevitability. I hear it all the time with AI—that we have to adapt because this is simply the future. While I think it’s important to become acquainted with new technologies and feel like you have agency over them, I’m excited because there are still so many choices to be made. I don’t think we’re at the point of doom, but it’s going to take all of us. It won’t happen because one 13-year-old puts down her phone or one lawmaker passes a bill; it will take a collective moment. And while a $17 billion settlement might be a drop in the bucket for a big tech company, it’s still a place to start. It’s still an important milestone. It’s a drop in the bucket, but there’s still a bucket—and there’s still a cost. It may be small, but it is progress.
About Emma Lembke
Emma Lembke is the Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of the LOG OFF Movement, the Co-Founder of Design It For Us, and thevDirector of Gen Z Advocacy at the Sustainable Media Center.
About Michael Slaby
Michael Slaby is a leader in how values, systems, strategy, and technology drive movements and organizations. At Murmuration, he leads marketing, fundraising, network engagement, and culture. Before joining Murmuration, he was a senior strategist and head of community at Harmony Labs where he worked on accelerating media reform and transformation. He founded and was head of mission of Timshel, a social impact technology company, and was a fellow at the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Michael helped lead the Obama for America campaign as chief integration and innovation officer in 2012 where he oversaw all technology and analytics and as deputy digital director and chief technology officer in 2008.
Murmuration is a nonprofit working to transform America into a nation where everyone can thrive. We organize a network of community-focused partners and equip them with the insights, tools, and services they need to help communities build and activate power more effectively. murmuration.org