The journalist cum (heh) podcaster Michael Hobbs did a bunch of reporting and investigation into moral panics. He reckons one of the key aspects to identify is what you don't need evidence to believe.
E.g. lots of people "just know" phones are bad in the same way people a few hundred years ago "just knew" women reading books was bad. I think a lot of concern about pornography and masturbation is still tainted by religious moralism as actual evidence of harm is extremely sparse.
People look at trends in society they don't like and attribute them to social values they don't like. Actual investigation is often jawdroppingly difficult, and we should avoid sweeping generalisation or confusing cause and effect.
Like if it's true that idk kids do use phone too much and it's bad, is it phone that means kids use phone too much? Or would kids be doing some other thing that is maybe even worse (again if it is true that phone is bad) because of structural changes in society and culture.
side of the discussion.
I was though D: since the Kremlin fired me I have pivoted from state operator to lib wrecker.