KQED61%

These UC Berkeley Students Are Leading the Fight Against Phones 82%

By Eliza Peppel0%

4/25/2026, 8:00:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,239 faulty-reasoning hits from 658 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.8% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,968 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

On a sunny Friday afternoon at Memorial Glade, the center of UC Berkeley’s campus, students set up volleyball nets, cornhole, picnic blankets and a makeshift plywood stage for live music. 
Their goal? 
To throw a phone-free party. 
Music blasted from a speaker near a snack table. 
Colorful, handwritten signs read messages like “Favorite app? 
Delete it,” and “Take back your mind.” 
At a check-in table, students had the option to seal their cell phones in a plastic bag. 
Nearby, students propped up gravestones cut out of posterboard, each bearing the logo of a different social media app. 
The event was hosted by Project Reboot, an organization born on Berkeley’s campus, with the mission of helping young people “reset their tech habits, reclaim their time and regain their focus.” 
The project began in the form of a semester-long class that helped students reduce their screen time. 
A handmade sign reads “Live With Intention” at a phone-free event at UC Berkeley on Friday, April 24, 2026. 
(Eliza Peppel/KQED) 
“I feel like [screen] addiction has kind of been our birthright,” said Dawson Kelly, a third-year student and one of the event’s hosts. 
Kelly said he’s working on a thesis about digital dependence. 
“We need more infrastructure for our generation to take back our time, take back our agency, and look at all the things that have been stolen from us, and not let this be the anxious generation that we’ve been made out to be.” 
Sahar Yousef, a Berkeley neuroscientist and lecturer who serves on Project Reboot’s research advisory board, said her students are increasingly pushing back “against the default of being on their phones, constantly scrolling. 
“This is truly a demonstration that they’ve wanted to put together,” Yousef said, “to demonstrate what has really been taken from them.” 
According to a survey of UC Berkeley undergraduates, 78% of students reported that they believe their phone use “prevents them from thinking deeply, being creative, or engaging fully with ideas.” 
Third-year students Ashlyn Torres and Izzy Newman said they found out about Friday’s event from a flier, instead of through the usual social media channels. 
Torres said she left her phone at home before joining. 
“It was different this morning because I was able to recognize there is life around me,” she said. 
“And we probably should talk to each other more and just listen to what the world has to offer rather than just what our phones have to offer.” 
Jonny Vasquez is a third-year student and advocate for reduced screen time on campus. 
To reach other students, he said, he started standing in a busy area of campus holding a sign that read, “Lowest screentime contest.” 
“People would either completely ignore the sign,” Vasquez said, “or they would come up and say, ‘Oh my goodness, I’ve been waiting for someone to help us with this.’” 
Vasquez said that since he deleted his social media accounts, he’s stopped comparing himself to others and experiences greater overall satisfaction with his life. 
He said he hopes to continue to share that with others. 
Students rally during a game of volleyball on the grass at a phone-free gathering at UC Berkeley on Friday, April 24, 2026. 
(Eliza Peppel/KQED) 
Several students offered each other tips about creating some distance with their phones, including plugging it in out of reach overnight, turning it completely off while socializing, and leaning on a community with like-minded goals to hold each other accountable. 
Kelly said that the movement the students hope to create is about their personal agency. 
“These are the peak years of our lives, and they’ve been stolen from us by companies that are making billions and billions of dollars every single year to take as much of our time as possible. 
We have to fight back, and we fight back by connecting and engaging in a life that we should have been living from the beginning.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.1%Eliza Peppel: 3.4%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Eliza Peppel: 2.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Eliza Peppel: 5.9%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect15.8%This article: 12.0%Eliza Peppel: 3.1%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion12.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 1.7%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Eliza Peppel: 3.6%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 24.6%Eliza Peppel: 7.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias24.6%This article: 6.4%Eliza Peppel: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.1%Eliza Peppel: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.1%This article: 6.1%Eliza Peppel: 3.5%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Eliza Peppel: 2.0%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.3%Eliza Peppel: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.3%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Eliza Peppel: 2.8%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 4.3%Eliza Peppel: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 5.5%Eliza Peppel: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope5.5%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Eliza Peppel: 7.1%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.3%Eliza Peppel: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 6.7%Eliza Peppel: 8.2%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion6.7%This article: 13.7%Eliza Peppel: 2.4%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question13.7%This article: 8.2%Eliza Peppel: 1.7%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.0%Eliza Peppel: 6.1%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal16.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 1.8%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 2.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.8%Eliza Peppel: 4.3%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice8.8%This article: 15.7%Eliza Peppel: 8.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination15.7%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.6%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eliza Peppel: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

658 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers62%attributed speech253writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageProject Reboot • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDawson Kelly • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDawson Kelly • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDawson Kelly • 43 words • 100.0% coverageSahar Yousef • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSahar Yousef • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAshlyn Torres • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAshlyn Torres • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAshlyn Torres • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAshlyn Torres • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJonny Vasquez • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJonny Vasquez • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJonny Vasquez • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJonny Vasquez • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDawson Kelly • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDawson Kelly • 36 words • 100.0% coverageDawson Kelly • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dawson Kelly

100%flagged-word coverage
152 attributed words38% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+42.0 ptsWriter: 2.8%Dawson Kelly: 44.7%44.7%Biased Writer Voice+23.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dawson Kelly: 23.7%23.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.