The debate over 'digital natives'—young people who have grown up with technology—has sparked significant interest among educators and commentators. These individuals are said to possess advanced technical skills and learning preferences that traditional education is unprepared for. However, the debate is criticized for lacking empirical and theoretical support, often resembling an academic form of 'moral panic'. The authors argue that the claims about digital natives are not well-supported by research and that the debate is at an impasse. The concept of digital natives is based on two main assumptions: that young people are highly skilled in technology and that their learning styles differ from previous generations. However, research indicates that not all young people are equally proficient with technology, and there is no evidence of a uniform learning style. The use of technology varies widely among students, influenced by factors such as socio-economic status, cultural background, and gender. Claims that education must fundamentally change to accommodate digital natives are also questioned. While some argue that current educational systems are outdated and need to adapt, research suggests that students are not as disengaged or alienated as claimed. Technology plays different roles in students' lives outside and inside school, and its impact on learning is not as straightforward as often assumed. The debate is further complicated by the structure of arguments that present a clear divide between digital natives and previous generations, and between educators and students. This binary thinking can limit critical discussion and lead to unsupported claims. The authors call for a more measured and disinterested approach to the debate, emphasizing the need for research that can provide a solid foundation for future educational reforms. They argue that while young people are engaged with technology, the implications for education are not as clear-cut as the debate suggests. A more nuanced understanding is needed to determine how education should evolve to meet the needs of all students.The debate over 'digital natives'—young people who have grown up with technology—has sparked significant interest among educators and commentators. These individuals are said to possess advanced technical skills and learning preferences that traditional education is unprepared for. However, the debate is criticized for lacking empirical and theoretical support, often resembling an academic form of 'moral panic'. The authors argue that the claims about digital natives are not well-supported by research and that the debate is at an impasse. The concept of digital natives is based on two main assumptions: that young people are highly skilled in technology and that their learning styles differ from previous generations. However, research indicates that not all young people are equally proficient with technology, and there is no evidence of a uniform learning style. The use of technology varies widely among students, influenced by factors such as socio-economic status, cultural background, and gender. Claims that education must fundamentally change to accommodate digital natives are also questioned. While some argue that current educational systems are outdated and need to adapt, research suggests that students are not as disengaged or alienated as claimed. Technology plays different roles in students' lives outside and inside school, and its impact on learning is not as straightforward as often assumed. The debate is further complicated by the structure of arguments that present a clear divide between digital natives and previous generations, and between educators and students. This binary thinking can limit critical discussion and lead to unsupported claims. The authors call for a more measured and disinterested approach to the debate, emphasizing the need for research that can provide a solid foundation for future educational reforms. They argue that while young people are engaged with technology, the implications for education are not as clear-cut as the debate suggests. A more nuanced understanding is needed to determine how education should evolve to meet the needs of all students.