A month ago the EU narrowly kept alive a rule letting platforms voluntarily scan private messages, no warrant, no suspicion. Last week the US Senate advanced four bills (KOSA and others) built on the same logic: to protect kids, platforms must verify everyone’s age. Britain has already gone furthest, legally naming eleven platforms that must verify users. The ID-verification infrastructure behind all this already failed once, a vendor breach exposed 70,000 government ID photos last October. Same justification, three different jurisdictions, all moving the same direction.

A month ago the European Parliament voted on whether to block a rule letting platforms scan private messages, emails, and photos, no warrant, no suspicion required.

The vote to kill it actually won more votes than the vote to keep it, 314 to 276, but fell short of the absolute majority needed to block it under the procedure used.

So it survived on a technicality, not a mandate. That rule, Chat Control 1.0, is now extended until 2028. It stays voluntary and does not touch fully encrypted apps. The bigger, mandatory version, sometimes called Chat Control 2.0, has not passed. It collapsed in negotiations in June and comes back for another attempt in September.

Last week the US Senate Commerce Committee advanced four bills addressing the same territory: the Kids Online Safety Act, the Youth AI Privacy Act, the CHATBOT Act, and a bill on AI-enabled toys. Advanced, not passed, they still need a full Senate vote and the House. But the mechanism inside KOSA is worth understanding: platforms face liability the moment a minor is harmed, and the only way to avoid that liability is to verify the exact age of every single user. Not most. Every one.

That infrastructure has already failed once. In October last year, a vendor called 5CA, handling age verification appeals for Discord, was breached. Roughly seventy thousand government ID photos were exposed. A class action lawsuit followed within days and remains open.

Britain has gone furthest of the three. Ofcom’s official register, published in July, legally names eleven platforms, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and more, requiring them to verify who is and is not an adult. Wikipedia narrowly avoided the same designation after a formal legal challenge, and the Foundation has said the threat has only paused, not disappeared.

Full sourced breakdown, every claim linked to the original filing, court docket, or regulator statement, is on the blog: raw.natschooler.com

Stories like this are exactly why Monday Influencer exists, real education from real experts, not copy-paste headlines.

MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.

Get your $1 Trial here → mondayinfluencer.com ←

All sources can be found here: https://www.natschooler.com/they-want-your-id-how-the-eu-the-us-and-the-uk-are-quietly-building-the-same-system/

The Court ruled that the president can fire commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission whenever he wants, ending ninety years of independence for that agency. That independence was not a side detail. When Europe signed its Data Privacy Framework deal with America in 2023, it cited FTC independence 259 times as the guarantee that American data handling would stay fair and apolitical.

That guarantee is gone. Within a day, the privacy group noyb told the European Commission to withdraw the agreement entirely. This is already being called Schrems III, named after the lawyer who brought down the two data deals before this one. Both fell eventually. Everyone said they were safe right up until they were not.

Britain is not standing outside this either. The UK runs its own version of the same deal, called the UK-US Data Bridge, built on the exact same guarantee that just disappeared.

Nothing has been struck down yet. The framework remains legally valid today. But the foundation it stood on just cracked in three countries at once, and the people who broke the last two versions of this deal are already circling.

Watch the full breakdown above. Tomorrow, part two: the child safety laws that are quietly turning into ID verification for everyone.

MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.

Get your $1 Trial here → mondayinfluencer.com ←

Eighty eight percent of hiring managers now say they can spot an AI-written application. Fifty four percent mark the candidate down when they do.

Claiming AI fluency on a resume has quietly become a red flag instead of a credential, and most people have not noticed the shift yet.

This is day three of a three-day run on AI and jobs. Day one looked at who is actually losing work to AI right now. Day two looked at what makes a role hard to replace. Today is the part that matters most if you are trying to stay employable: how do you actually prove you can use AI well, when the proof itself is now under suspicion.

Here is the research that changed how I think about this. A Harvard Business School and Boston Consulting Group study tracking 758 consultants found something uncomfortable. Inside AI’s zone of real competence, using it boosted quality by more than 40 percent. Step outside that zone, into the areas AI is confidently wrong about, and performance got 19 points worse than not using AI at all. Standard AI training made this worse, not better, because it taught people to trust the tool rather than to check it.

Separately, a study published in PNAS found that humans can tell AI-written text apart from human-written text at only 50 to 52 percent accuracy. That is a coin flip. So the idea that a hiring manager can eyeball your portfolio and know whether you actually did the thinking is mostly wishful thinking on both sides.

And Anthropic’s own data on how people actually use AI in practice found that only 8.7 percent of conversations involved any visible fact-checking or verification, and that number is going down as the models get better, not up. People are trusting the output more as it gets harder to catch when it is wrong.

So here is where that leaves you. Stop trying to claim AI fluency. Start documenting judgement instead, the moments where you caught the tool being confidently wrong, where you pushed back on an output, where you verified something before it went out under your name. That is the proof hiring managers actually say they are looking for. A polished, tidy AI-assisted portfolio is now more likely to hurt you than help you, because 29 percent of hiring managers say they have already caught a candidate submitting an AI-generated fake one.

The uncomfortable part underneath all of this. Staying ahead of a tool that improves every few months means accepting you will be a beginner again and again, for the rest of your working life. Not once. Not until you get certified. Every few months, indefinitely. That is not a phase you get through. That is the job now.

I built Monday Influencer with Steven J. Manning for exactly this reason. AI can be manipulated, and most people using it daily have no idea when that is happening to them. We built curated, verified expert insight specifically so you are not left guessing whether what you just read was checked by anyone at all.

Catch up on part one and part two of this series if you missed them, links below.

You can also checkout the full blog on my personal website here covering the entire situation: https://www.natschooler.com/the-graduate-job-collapse-what-fourteen-new-studies-actually-say-about-ai-and-entry-level-work/

MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.

Get your $1 Trial here → mondayinfluencer.com ←

In this episode, day thirty of the one hundred and eighty three day challenge, I break down the one skill now splitting every job on the planet into two tracks. One track moves you into judgement and oversight as AI takes the routine work off your desk. The other track leaves you executing while AI quietly takes the expertise that used to be yours. Same job title, same qualifications, completely different future, and which track you land on is not down to luck.

Subscribe now

I walk through real cases, including a telecom firm that saw productivity jump from five percent to thirty percent the moment staff moved from doing the work to checking it, plus what this shift means if you are early in your career trying to get hired, and what it means if you are further along and trying to stay employed. I also cover why deep focus and pattern recognition skills, long undervalued outside of a narrow set of roles, are becoming some of the most valuable skills in the AI era, and why almost nobody is talking about that properly.

I am doing a video every day for one hundred and eighty three days to build one hundred thousand followers and keep you informed. Follow along for the journey.

Subscribe to Monday Influencer at mondayinfluencer.com. Real education from real experts, so you are never on the wrong side of this shift.

This is not just an American story — the UK, India, and seven major economies are showing the same pattern. I break down who actually deserves the anger here, who does not, and what is working right now if you want to stay ahead of this, whatever stage of your career you are at.

Full shownotes and sources: natschooler.com/nobody-is-coming-to-save-your-career
Subscribe to Monday Influencer®: mondayinfluencer.com
Everything else: natschooler.com/tools

Day 1 of a 3-day series.

Three governments, three names, one identical outcome.

Full sourcing and references: natschooler.com/they-never-called-it-digital-id
Monday Influencer: mondayinfluencer.com

Most people cannot tell a real mentor from someone who has simply learned to sound like one, and that gap is where years and money get lost chasing advice that was never earned. I break down four filters for spotting a fake mentor or coach, human or digital, before you hand them your trust. Built from years working alongside IBM, Oracle, and other major tech companies, plus five hundred-plus expert interviews over ten years — this is pattern, not theory. The same test applies whether it is a human coach or an AI chatbot. Different packaging, same underlying check.

Subscribe to Monday Influencer®: mondayinfluencer.com
Everything else: natschooler.com/tools

Subscribe to Monday Influencer: mondayinfluencer.com
Subscribe to the newsletter: raw.natschooler.com

#AI #Revenue #FutureOfWork #MondayInfluencer #BusinessGrowth

Subscribe to Monday Influencer: mondayinfluencer.com
Subscribe to the newsletter: raw.natschooler.com

#Skills #YourTwenties #HighIncomeSkills #CareerAdvice #MondayInfluencer #Mindset #SelfImprovement

Real commitments.

Not soft commitments. Not lip service. Not performative virtue. Not word salad. Not listening to yourself talk.

No nonsense. No bull…

Before anything else, one request. It matters a great deal.

If, after reading this ABSTRACT^®, you believe it has genuine value, simply reply to this email with one word:

YES

That is all.

Your response will help shape what comes next.

This ABSTRACT^® is not merely another issue. It is the intellectual scaffolding for what we intend to become a comprehensive, one-year university-level course.

If we do not hear from you, we will reluctantly conclude that you did not find it sufficiently valuable to warrant a one-word reply.

Thank you.

There are ten commitments that consistently distinguish successful careers, successful businesses, and successful lives from ordinary ones.

The question is not whether you agree with them. The question is far more demanding:

How committed are you to living them?

By commitments, we mean the enduring obligations and promises that determine the trajectory of an adult life.

Not goals.

Not aspirations.

Not motivational slogans.

Not inspirational nonsense.

Please pay particular attention this THE MANNING OBSERVATION. From it, you may develop your own observations, your own aphorisms, and ultimately your own philosophy for living.

• Every adult makes commitments.

• Successful adults make the right commitments.

• Extraordinary adults honor them consistently.

We believe this may be the most consequential MONDAY INFLUENCER ABSTRACT^® we have ever published.

Perhaps the highest-return investment from eight minutes of reading many people will make.

Inside, we examine THE TEN COMMITMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL ADULT LIVES, organized into five foundational categories:

• Commitment to Self

• Commitment to Family

• Commitment to Work

• Commitment to Resources

• Commitment to Society

Permit us one observation, entirely consistent with our editorial philosophy:

The quality of a life is determined not by the number of commitments one makes, but by the judgment exercised in choosing them—and the discipline with which they are honored.

• Every adult makes commitments.

• Few choose them wisely.

• Fewer still honor them.

And now, a big bonus.

Included with this ABSTRACT^® is THE FIVE-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SELF-ASSESSMENT™.

How committed are you to the ten commitments that most consistently distinguish successful careers, businesses, and lives?

A brief observation from Steven J. Manning.

The moment I finished creating THE FIVE-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SELF-ASSESSMENT™, I completed it myself! I learned a great deal.

Read the PDF here. Estimated reading time: 6 minutes.

Listen to the Executive Audio here. Just 10 minutes.

Life, business and careers are a 90/10 proposition.

90% of us experience some of the same challenges at the intersections of life, business and career. Some overcome those. Many just survive. Some experience a lifetime of failure. And some convert those into resounding successes.

At MONDAY INFLUENCER^® We Architect Outcomes.

If You think this is for you then you can get your $1. Dollar Month 1 Trial here.

Thank you.

Our best.

Steven & Nathaniel

Also: Monday, MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is opening up beyond paid subscribers for one issue only, so look out for a special email from me.

They Are Watching. That is not me being dramatic for the sake of it, it is genuinely where this week’s research led me.

Somewhere right now, an official is on the phone with someone inside Facebook, or YouTube, or X, deciding whether something you posted, or something you were about to see, gets to exist tomorrow. No judge, no law, no vote. It has already happened this year, in your country or one very close to it.

I went deep this week. Two independent AI research passes scanned thousands of web pages between them, hunting down every credible thread across a dozen countries, and everything that survived was checked again, directly, before it made it into the video. Where something is disputed, I say so on camera.

The full story covers the White House pressuring Facebook and YouTube on COVID content, the UK’s own Counter Disinformation Unit running daily contact with platforms, a European Commissioner’s letter to Elon Musk that ended his career within weeks, and a hacktivist group turning the exact same tactic back on the EU itself.

Then it goes further than I have gone before: India’s three-hour takedown rule, Gulf states admitting on their own transparency reports that they removed content which broke none of their platform rules, and Iran shutting its own internet down twice in under a year. I also cover the actual formal laws now shaping all of this in the UK, the EU and the US, including a brand new bipartisan bill in the US Senate genuinely called the JAWBONE Act.

And I end on Canada deliberately, because it cuts the other way. A viral claim about Bill C-9 being used retroactively simply does not hold up once you check it properly. Worth knowing, in a week full of governments overreaching, that sometimes the overreach story itself is the exaggeration.

I also give genuine, practical guidance near the end on what is safe to say and what is not, because anger is exactly when people post things they come to regret.

Watch here:

The full written breakdown, with every source linked and organised by region, lives here: https://www.natschooler.com/jawboning-exposed-how-governments-secretly-pressure-social-media-without-passing-a-law/

If this concerned you, do not just sit with it. Send it to one friend.

Share Future Proofed Leader

One more thing before you go.

Monday I will be sending you a very important email. Every Monday, MONDAY INFLUENCER^® goes out, written in partnership with Steven J. Manning, a business leader who has personally driven over forty-seven billion dollars in commerce for the clients he has worked with.

It normally lives behind our paid subscription.

This coming Monday, we are opening it up wider than usual, so more people get to actually see what it is, not just our existing subscribers. There is no cost to look, and no obligation either way.

Keep an eye out Monday for an email from me. I think once you see it, you will understand why I believe in it enough to make an exception for it.

Want more? Change your life. Subscribe to MONDAY INFLUENCER^®

MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.

Get your $1 Trial here → mondayinfluencer.com ←

I went after self-development — hard. The scams, the manifestation nonsense, the coaches who go quiet the moment they’ve got your money. I had the receipts: MOBE, shut down by the FTC in 2018 after taking $125 million from people with a fake system to “online riches.” University of Queensland research showing the people who believe hardest in manifestation are also the ones most likely to go bankrupt. A meta-analysis of 400+ studies showing even genuine, honestly-held intentions only turn into action about half the time.

My argument was simple: the industry sells you information and motivation. You already have both. What you’re missing is permission — the thing Jonathan Chase, Britain’s leading hypnotist, spent 40 years proving live on stage. Tell someone under hypnosis the chair behind them isn’t there, and they won’t sit down, no matter how loudly their conscious mind insists it’s real. The subconscious doesn’t negotiate with logic. It only needs permission. Most of us were never given it.

I thought that was the whole story.

Then Sarah D’Souza — an executive coach out of Stanford, published in the Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology — pulled me up on it.

She said most people aren’t chasing self-help for information at all. They’re chasing it for care, connection, community, and permission to just be — not constantly do.

That one comment reframed everything. It’s why 18% of 18-29 year-olds in the US have already turned to an AI chatbot for companionship or emotional support, according to Pew. It’s why the $5 billion coaching industry is quietly being eaten by something free that fits in your pocket. AI doesn’t oversell you a mastermind. It doesn’t vanish the moment it has your money. It’s there at two in the morning when no human coach is picking up.

But it still can’t do the one thing that actually matters. It can validate you, mirror you, tell you exactly what you want to hear in perfectly patient sentences all day long. What it can’t do is stand in the room the way Jonathan Chase used to, and rewire the part of you that was never told you were allowed to succeed.

So the industry isn’t dying. It’s mutating. The scammers are being replaced by something more efficient and less predatory. The actual problem — the permission problem — is sitting exactly where it always was.

I laid out the whole thing, sources and all, in this week’s video:

Watch: The Real Reason You’re Still Stuck (It’s Not You)

Nobody manifests a mowed lawn. Nobody manifests a body, a business, or a bank balance either. But permission — real, human, given by someone who’s actually done the thing — that’s something worth chasing.

If you want more of this kind of unfiltered, no-guru-worship thinking, that’s exactly what Monday Influencer is built for. [Subscribe here.]

Full sources and the article breakdown are on the blog: Can AI Replace Your Life Coach?

This is day 19 of 183. One video a day, this is an extra one…building toward 100,000 followers. Thanks for following the journey.

Want More?

Change Your Life

SUBSCRIBE TO MONDAY INFLUENCER

Britain Blinked First

The UK announced a national digital ID card last September, built to verify the right to work. The backlash was immediate. Two point nine million people signed a petition against it within weeks.

The new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, scrapped it entirely in July. He redirected the one point eight billion pound budget into a VAT cut on winter electricity bills. Seventy eight per cent of British adults preferred that trade.

Here is the part most coverage missed. GOV.UK One Login, already used by fourteen million citizens, keeps running. A digital driving licence is already piloting inside it. The national card died. The quieter infrastructure underneath it did not.

Europe Held Its Nerve

The European Union set a December deadline for every member state to offer a Digital Identity Wallet, and it has not moved an inch.

Privacy groups have read the fine print in public. A facial photograph has crept into the minimum data required. A rule meant to prevent tracking has been softened to merely hinder it.

Europe chose to standardise first and argue about the safeguards in the open, afterwards. That is a genuinely different order of operations to Britain’s.

America Chose Speed

There is still no national digital ID in the United States, and no real appetite for one. Instead, fifty separate experiments are running at once.

California just expanded its mobile driving licence pilot to sixty per cent of its drivers, close to seventeen million people. The ACLU has already warned Congress this is becoming a state by state tracking system, built without a federal privacy law to hold it together.

The Leadership Question Underneath All of This

Every one of these governments answered the same question differently: who should be trusted to hold the keys to a person’s identity.

That is not just a policy question. It is a leadership question, and it is arriving at your desk whether you have prepared for it or not.

Identity verification is moving from a conversation to a cryptographic exchange. That changes who you hire to run onboarding. It changes what your fraud team is actually defending against. It changes what a customer assumes you already know before they have said a word to you.

Steven J. Manning and I sit inside exactly this kind of shift every week on MONDAY INFLUENCER. The businesses that get ahead of it are not the ones with the biggest compliance budget. They are the ones who worked out early which model their market is heading toward, and built for it before it became mandatory.

Where This Leaves You

None of these three systems are finished. Britain proved a government can be forced to reverse course within a year. Europe is being pushed, in public, to close its own gaps before the deadline lands. America still has time to decide whether speed and coordination need to be a trade-off at all.

The businesses paying attention now will not be caught explaining themselves later.

Full breakdown, sources, and the UK/EU/US comparison table are on the blog: Digital ID 2026: Britain Walks Away While Europe and America Press On

Get Future Proofed Leader free, every week, in under ten minutes. No noise. Subscribe at raw.natschooler.com.

I spend most weeks in this newsletter talking about staying relevant as a leader in the AI era. This week is different. This week is about a decision that already affects every message you send, whether you lead a team of five or five thousand.

The vote nobody expected to lose

On the ninth of July, the European Parliament voted on extending Chat Control, the regulation that lets platforms scan private messages on services such as Gmail, Facebook Messenger and Instagram. Three hundred and fourteen MEPs voted to reject it. Two hundred and seventy-six voted to keep it. A clear majority wanted it gone.

It passed regardless. The procedure required an absolute majority of three hundred and sixty-one votes to block it, and empty seats counted as support. The law now runs until 2028.

One genuine protection survived the same session. Signal and WhatsApp, being properly end-to-end encrypted, were explicitly excluded. The broader push to reach inside those apps, Chat Control 2.0, has already failed five rounds of negotiation and returns to the table in September.

Across the Atlantic, the direction is the same. The KIDS Act passed the US House on the twenty-ninth of June, covering age verification and platform duties. No on-device scanning yet, but the trajectory matches Europe’s.

Britain went further, and Apple lost

Britain did not wait for Brussels. The Online Safety Act now requires platforms to scan content before it reaches you. Underneath it sits older legislation letting the Home Secretary issue secret orders demanding companies weaken encryption, orders the recipient is legally barred from confirming even exist.

Apple received one. The Home Office ordered a backdoor into iCloud. Apple refused to build it, switched off its strongest encryption tier for every UK customer instead, challenged the order in court, and lost. Today, an iPhone in Britain carries less protection than the identical device anywhere else on earth.

The most valuable technology company in history held the line everywhere it could. It still folded in the one place that mattered.

Share

And in Britain, it goes further than messages, into prediction itself. In Bristol, data on over ninety percent of the population has been fed into a police prediction system built jointly with the city council. Mental health records, housing status, free school meals, all of it feeding scores assigned to children. Nobody was told. It looks like a court case waiting to happen.

That is one city. More than seventy AI policing tools now operate across England and Wales, most with no meaningful oversight, and the government has funded a national predictive policing prototype combining police, council and social services data. Facial recognition vans are rolling out across seven forces, and in June the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police argued publicly that police should not have to wait for legislation before deploying new technology.

Meanwhile, seventy-four percent of Britons say they expect large-scale unrest this year. That is the precise moment the state chose to build a machine that tries to predict who might cause trouble, before anyone has done anything at all.

The machine that does not work

Here is the part that should trouble anyone who believes this protects children, because that was the stated purpose throughout.

Amazon’s scanning system flagged over one million pieces of content as suspected abuse material. 99.6 percent were false alarms, by the European Commission’s own reporting. Germany’s Federal Criminal Police say close to half of everything referred is not even criminally relevant.

Patrick Breyer, a former Member of the European Parliament, called it five years and millions of euros spent on an algorithm that cannot protect a single child, money that never reached the survivors still waiting for support. They did not fund the people who protect victims. They funded the machine that watches everyone else.

One rule for the people who wrote it

This is the part that should genuinely irritate you.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, the institution behind Chat Control, uses Signal with disappearing messages. Keir Starmer has used disappearing WhatsApp messages during the very parliamentary inquiry seeking his own records. In America, senior officials planned live military strikes over Signal, a lapse serious enough to trigger a formal Inspector General investigation.

They trust encryption with the nation’s deepest secrets. They do not trust a citizen with a private conversation.

Subscribe now

Where this leaves you

This is the short version, the sharpest cuts from a longer investigation. If you want every law, every power and every source, the full piece is on the site: https://www.natschooler.com/chat-control-the-online-safety-act-and-the-kids-act-how-the-eu-uk-and-us-are-each-building-message-surveillance-into-law/

You can also watch the video, or listen to it as a podcast episode, wherever you get your shows:

Three things worth doing this week. Use properly encrypted tools, Signal for messages, Proton Mail for email. Watch September, when Chat Control 2.0 returns to the table, and write to your representative before that vote rather than after it. And talk about this, because every one of these laws has depended on one thing above all else, that nobody was paying attention for long enough to object.

Staying relevant as a leader means understanding the systems shaping how your teams, your clients and your own communications are governed. This is one of them.

MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.

Get your $1 Trial here → mondayinfluencer.com ←

• Meta told a federal court it could face $1.4 trillion in penalties for building addictive algorithms. I am one of the people it broke, and I am telling you how I am getting my mind back.

• I also sat down with Dawna Jones, twenty years into network science, on Vital Cartography, why hierarchy in nature is not the same as hierarchy in most organisations, and why the whole conversation kept circling back to one word: responsibility.

• Two different conversations, same underlying question: what do we actually do with the systems that shape us.

Meta’s Court Confession: $1.4 Trillion and Counting

Future Proofed Leader

Future Proofed Leader

$1.4 Trillion and Counting: Meta's Court Battle Over Addiction

I am addicted to my phone. Meta just told a federal court it built the algorithms that made that happen, and now faces up to $1.4 trillion in penalties for it. In this episode: the court filing, what twenty years of screen habits did to your attention span, and why — despite what Meta argues in its own defence — your brain can rebuild what it lost…

Listen now

a month ago · Nat Schooler

I am addicted to my phone.

I am telling you that first, because nothing below means anything if I write it from a distance. I am not writing from a distance. I am writing from inside it, trying to work out how I get my mind back over the next ten years instead of losing more of it to a screen that was built, on purpose, to take it.

Here is what Meta told a federal court. On 6 July, it disclosed that four US states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — are pursuing penalties that could scale up to $1.4 trillion. That is roughly what the entire company is worth.

The trial starts 18 August in Oakland. Forty-two state attorneys general are already involved. Over 2,400 federal lawsuits sit behind this one. A Santa Fe jury already made Meta pay $375 million in March, for the same underlying claim.

Subscribe now

Here is the part that unsettled me more than the number did. This was not discovered. It was known, by the people who built it.

Steve Jobs, by multiple public accounts, kept his own children away from the very devices his company sold to the rest of us. Meta’s engineers have spent a decade being asked, in earlier litigation, about infinite scroll, autoplay, and reward mechanics lifted from slot machine design. This was not an accident. It was the product.

Future Proofed Leader

Vital Cartography: Dawna Jones on Networks, Health, and the Ultimate Form of Agency

Dawna Jones has been working in network science for twenty years. She wrote Decision Making for Dummies, spent the mid-2000s inside Hewlett-Packard’s original social network mapping research, and has interviewed and been interviewed more times than either of us could count. In this episode, she joins me to talk about Vital Cartography, her new project, …

Listen now

a month ago · Nat Schooler

I want to be precise here, because precision matters more than outrage does. I am not saying social media is evil. I am not saying the phone in your pocket is evil. Tools do not have morals — the people who design them do.

What I am saying is that we, the users, have to take responsibility. Not only for our own minds, but for the generation coming up behind us, who never knew a world without this pull.

Now the part that actually made me sit up. Dr Gloria Mark at UC Irvine has measured attention spans on screens for almost two decades. In 2004, the average was two and a half minutes.

Today, replicated across five independent studies, it is 47 seconds. Once you are interrupted, it takes 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully return to what you were doing.

Here is the part nobody sells you, because hope does not travel as fast as fear does. This is reversible.

A 2016 study in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology found that exercise helped restore dopamine receptor availability that had been worn down by compulsive overstimulation. Sit with the craving instead of feeding it, and it genuinely loses amplitude over time. That is not a productivity hack. It is training.

Steven wrote EVIL DOES NOT NEGOTIATE. this week: https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/columnist/389839/evil-does-not-negotiate/

I am not putting Meta’s product design in the same category as what he was writing about — that would cheapen both arguments. But there is one shared discipline underneath both pieces. Some things you do not bargain with. You do not talk your addiction down. You sit with it until you have mastered it, not the other way round.

That is what I am doing, starting today. Not finished. Started.

One line to sit with: some things you do not bargain with.

Vital Cartography: Dawna Jones on Networks, Health, and the Ultimate Form of Agency

Network First Podcast

Dawna Jones has been working in network science for twenty years. She wrote Decision Making for Dummies, spent the mid-2000s inside Hewlett-Packard’s original social network mapping research, and has interviewed and been interviewed more times than either of us could count.

In this episode, she joins me to talk about Vital Cartography, her new project, and why the same principles that make a network resilient also make a body, an organisation, and a planet resilient.

We started with why she joined the Network First Manifesto. Her answer went back to her years as a facilitator working across sectors, watching the same pattern repeat: good intentions moving forward in the room, and an undertow working against them underneath.

From there we got into the difference between hierarchy as it exists in nature, and hierarchy as most organisations actually use it. Hierarchies are real, Dawna argues, and demonising them has been convenient rather than accurate. What matters is whether you are running a centralised, autocratic version of it, or a dynamic, trust-based network where the real question is simply who you go to for what.

Vital Cartography is where the conversation opened up the most. Dawna built it on the recognition that the body’s eleven systems — endocrine, digestive, lymphatic, circulatory, and the rest — are treated by healthcare as separate, when in reality they are constantly talking to one another.

The project scales that idea from the personal to the organisational, and all the way up to the planetary, where the Amazon rainforest plays the role of lungs. It is now taking physical shape as an immersive installation: sound, colour, and interactive elements, built around five of the eleven systems most affected by stress.

We also talked, briefly, about Steve Jobs, and the uncomfortable fact that even extraordinary success does not exempt you from the basic truth that health is the precondition for everything else you are trying to build.

That led into decision making, and the moment Dawna landed on the word that shaped her book: awareness. Self-awareness, and contextual awareness. As long as you are on autopilot, she argues, you are making decisions off assumptions that are usually not true.

We closed on the word that kept surfacing through the whole conversation: responsibility. Once you accept responsibility for the direction you are heading and the circumstances you are actually in, you can move forward.

One line to sit with: we become the shape of who we are with.

Two conversations, one week apart, and the same word sitting underneath both of them. Not accident, not evil, not blame. Responsibility — for your own mind, and for the networks you choose to be shaped by.

Nat

If either of these was useful, the most helpful thing you can do is send it to one person who needs to hear it.

Subscribe to MONDAY INFLUENCER®

→ mondayinfluencer.com ←

We started with why she joined the Network First Manifesto in the first place. Her answer went back to her years as a facilitator working across sectors, watching the same pattern repeat: good intentions moving forward in the room, and an undertow working against them underneath. Networks were always the thing quietly running the show, whether anyone named them or not.

From there we got into something I think is genuinely underappreciated: the difference between hierarchy as it exists in nature, and hierarchy as most organisations actually use it. Hierarchies are real, Dawna argues, and demonising them has been convenient rather than accurate. What matters is whether you are running a centralised, autocratic version of hierarchy, or a dynamic, trust-based network where the real question is simply who you go to for what.

Vital Cartography is where the conversation opened up the most. Dawna built it on the recognition that the body’s eleven systems — endocrine, digestive, lymphatic, circulatory, and the rest — are treated by healthcare as separate, when in reality they are constantly talking to one another, shaped by context, emotion, and thought as much as by biology. The project scales that idea from the personal to the organisational — an organisation has something like a respiratory system, something like a cardiovascular system — and all the way up to the planetary, where the Amazon rainforest plays the role of lungs. It is now taking physical shape as an immersive installation: sound, colour, and interactive elements, built around five of the eleven systems most affected by stress.

Underneath the science sits something more personal. Dawna spoke about staying well as a non-negotiable when you are a single parent running your own business — nobody is going to pay you to be sick — and that is what pulled her into studying the actual mechanics of burnout. We also talked, briefly, about Steve Jobs, and the uncomfortable fact that even extraordinary success does not exempt you from the basic truth that health is the precondition for everything else you are trying to build.

That led naturally into decision making, which is where Dawna’s earlier work and this new project meet. She traced it back to a moment writing Decision Making for Dummies, being asked casually by strangers what the most important part of decision making actually is, and landing on one word: awareness. Self-awareness, and contextual awareness. As long as you are on autopilot, she argues, you are making decisions off assumptions that are usually not true.

We closed on the word that kept surfacing through the whole conversation: responsibility. Once you accept responsibility for the direction you are heading and the circumstances you are actually in, you can move forward. Dawna sees real potential for this to become its own layer within the Network First Manifesto framework — the human, embodied piece underneath the network science.

CHAPTERS 0:00 Welcome — what is making Dawna happy right now 1:46 Why she joined the Network First Manifesto 4:10 Hierarchy versus networks — why NFM has none 6:23 Vital Cartography — mapping health, complexity, and the planet 12:18 What Steve Jobs got right about health 14:34 Decision making, awareness, and getting off autopilot 17:57 Responsibility as the ultimate form of agency

One line to sit with: we become the shape of who we are with.

Nat

Network First Podcast is part of the Network First Manifesto. If this conversation was useful, send it to one person who needs to hear it.

All three are shaping outcomes that people attribute to other causes. This week, three episodes. One thread.

THE 15-YEAR SOCIAL MEDIA ILLUSION
What changed — and what never will · 10 min

I coached digital marketing workshops and social media workshops for partners at IBM and Microsoft years before most people knew what a personal brand was. The platforms have transformed beyond recognition. The human beings using them have not moved a centimetre.

That is the distinction most people miss. They rewrite their entire approach every time a platform shifts its feed logic, exhausting themselves chasing a moving surface over a very stable foundation.

What has shifted:

• Algorithmic feeds now govern reach — not your network size

• Faceless corporate pages have lost almost all organic visibility

• Personal content now generates 247 times more reach than standard brand posts

What has not shifted:

• People do business with people they know, like, and trust — that is the whole equation

• Stories carry information at 70 percent retention; data alone carries 10 percent

• Views that do not convert to revenue are not a metric worth measuring

The technology is a delivery mechanism. The fundamentals are the signal. This episode draws a clear line between the two — and it stays useful long after this week’s algorithm changes again.

→ Watch now:

CHANGING YOUR CAREER TRAJECTORY
The mechanics of a genuine pivot

Most professionals narrate their career like a timeline. I did this, then I managed that, then I delivered the other. It reads like a job description. It is just as forgettable.

What a decision-maker is actually searching for is the inflection point — the precise, high-stakes moment where you chose the harder path, absorbed the risk, and moved something forward that would not have moved without you.

Steven J. Manning and I pull this apart together. Steven has navigated multiple genuine turning points and speaks plainly about what those moments feel like from inside them. The discomfort. The clarity that arrives after. The way a single decision rewrites the professional story that follows.

If your profile is falling flat despite a strong track record, the problem is almost certainly the framing, not the experience. This episode shows you where to look.

→ Watch now:

LANGUAGE IS INFRASTRUCTURE
Why the words in your meetings are shaping the culture you cannot see

Sarah de Souza — psychologist, executive coach, and poet — joins this episode to address something most organisations treat as background noise: the vocabulary running their rooms.

“All hands meeting.” “Project lead.” Phrases pulled straight from industrial management, planted into environments that claim to value collaboration. We use them out of habit. They construct a world before the work begins.

Stand in a room described as an “all hands” and something almost imperceptible shifts. A flatness. A formality. The quiet signal that this is a broadcast, not a conversation. Language does that — always, and without announcement.

Change “all hands” to “Convergence.” Change “project lead” to “Catalyst.” These are not cosmetic adjustments. They are architectural ones, and this conversation with Sarah makes the case precisely and with real force.

→ Watch now:

THE THREAD

Career pivots, social media reach, organisational language. On the surface, three separate conversations.

The signal running through all of them is the same. The inherited patterns — the vocabulary people default to, the career narrative they never examined, the digital habits they stopped questioning — are shaping outcomes quietly, in the background, every single week.

The good news is that every one of these is changeable, starting now. The inflection point can be found and articulated this week. The vocabulary can shift in the next meeting. The social media fundamentals were never lost — they were simply obscured by noise.

The distance between where you are and where you want to be is shorter than it appears. It always is, once you know where to look.

Future Proofed Leader lands every week — it is reader-supported and free to join.
Subscribe →

Future Proofed Leader

Ex-IBM Futurist, best-selling author, and Co-Founder of MONDAY INFLUENCER® — helping you build a business and a life that compound, one bold conversation at a time.

By Nat Schooler

MONDAY INFLUENCER® →

https://mondayinfluencer.com/

We love to obsess over the new. Every time an algorithm tweaks, a platform shifts its feed, or a shiny new tool drops, the marketing “gurus” scream from the rooftops that everything you know is obsolete. They want you to believe you’re constantly one step behind.

But I’ve been digging into the social media and digital marketing trenches for the last 15 years. I recently spent time digging through old workshop materials I built back in 2015 for IBM Business Partners and Microsoft enablement. Looking back at those strategies, a glaring truth hit me: despite a decade and a half of technological leaps, the foundational landscape hasn’t actually changed all that much.

Yes, the paint on the walls is different, but the plumbing is exactly the same. Here is a look at what has truly evolved over the last 15 years, and the timeless elements that remain completely untouched.

What Evolved: From Friend Networks to Interest Feeds

Subscribe now

In the early days, social media was entirely relationship-driven. You logged on to see what your friends, family, and colleagues were doing. It was an online neighborhood.

Today, we operate in an era of interest-based media. The algorithms don’t care as much about who you know; they care about what you like. Your feed is curated around your behaviors, passions, and consumption habits.

With this shift came a complete transformation of content formats. We moved from basic text-based updates to photos, then to long-form video, and now to the hyper-fast world of short-form video. Alongside this, we’ve seen the rise of a massive creator economy and native social commerce. Fifteen years ago, you couldn’t buy a product directly inside an app without leaving the platform; today, seamless social shopping is a multi-billion dollar career path and business staple.

The Death of Organic Reach (And the Rise of the Personal Brand)

Because of this evolution, corporate organic reach is essentially dead. The landscape has matured into a classic environment where you either pay to play, or you become the product yourself.

The smartest businesses stopped relying on empty corporate pages years ago. Instead, they focused on two things: building deeply connected communities and leveraging their staff to amplify their message.

The data here is staggering: you get roughly 247 times more reach from personal brand content than you do from a faceless business brand. People want to connect with people, not logos. This is why activating your team’s personal networks is no longer optional—it is the ultimate amplification tool.

The Trap of the “Next Big Platform”

With platform fragmentation, there are more niche networks and hidden groups than ever before. The immediate temptation for brands is to spread themselves thin trying to be everywhere at once.

This is a resource trap. If a platform is working for you, you need to double down on it. Don’t pull your focus and resources into another basket if you can’t execute it incredibly well. Being mediocre across five platforms is a waste of time compared to winning on one.

What Never Changes: Human Psychology and Storytelling

Beneath the layer of AI, predictive algorithms, and shifting formats, the core driver of social media remains utterly stagnant. Why? Because human psychology doesn’t change.

Social media is driven by the exact same psychological desires today as it was 15 years ago: the need for belonging, validation, entertainment, and community. It has completely rewired our social boundaries. When we were kids, we were taught “don’t talk to strangers”. Now, we routinely build deep professional and personal relationships with people we met on Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok.

Because the human need for connection is constant, the power of authentic storytelling remains undefeated. It doesn’t matter how advanced an algorithm becomes; a compelling, raw, and authentic story will always outperform an overly polished, soulless corporate advertisement.

The Ongoing Battle: Vanity Metrics vs. Real ROI

The final thing that hasn’t changed? The endless client obsession with vanity metrics.

Fifteen years ago, clients were completely obsessed with likes and follower counts. Today, they’ve traded those for an obsession with views and impressions. They chase the quick hit of endorphins that comes with seeing a big number on a screen.

But the struggle to get businesses to focus on real return on investment (ROI) over empty popularity numbers is exactly the same as it has always been. You don’t need millions of followers to get meaningful reach; you just need excellent content pushed out consistently to the right audience. Frankly, if your social presence isn’t driving actual sales and business value, the size of your follower count is entirely irrelevant.

The Future: AI and Accelerating the Workflow

While the core principles of marketing remain time-honored, the tools we use to execute them are entering a wild new phase.

Over the years, I’ve used every tool under the sun—HootSuite, Buffer, Sprout Social, Social Pilot, and Audience. Many legacy platforms now feel frustratingly slow because our expectations for speed have skyrocketed.

This is where Large Language Models (LLMs) change the game. We can now connect these models directly to our workflows to radically speed up content creation, video editing, social posting, and deep data analysis.

However, a word of caution: these language models love to hallucinate. I recently spent a couple of weeks running complex marketing analysis reports for clients. You can run all the automated research you want, but if you don’t actually understand marketing fundamentals, that data output means absolutely nothing. AI is an incredible accelerator, but it requires human knowledge to keep it grounded.

The bottom line? Don’t let the noise of the “new” distract you from the power of the permanent. Focus on real business metrics, tell authentic stories, build genuine community, and use the latest technology to speed up your execution—not replace your strategy.

She told me something early in our conversation that stopped me.

Happiness cannot be pursued directly. The more you chase it, the less of it you experience. What she chases instead is meaning — and she has engineered her entire life around finding more of it.

That framing matters because the rest of what she said follows from it.

Sarah founded the Network First Poetics Project — which is not about poetry. It is about paying close attention to language, and what happens when the words you use do not match the world you are trying to build. When she joined Network First, she noticed people using old corporate vocabulary without thinking about it. “All hands meeting.” “Project lead.” Borrowed from exactly the kind of hierarchical structure they were trying to move beyond.

Subscribe now

Poetics changed that. “All hands” became “convergence.” “Project lead” became “catalyst.” Small shifts, but they changed how people thought about what they were doing together.

Her point is simple and I think most organisations have never once considered it. Language is not decoration. It is infrastructure. It builds the world inside you before it builds anything outside you.

We also talked about what happens when you get laid off. The email that arrives at four in the morning. Do not come back tomorrow. And with it, every relationship you built inside that organisation — gone, treated as though it had no real importance to anyone but you.

That is not an accident. It is the design.

The conversation is worth half an hour of your time.