Youth and Teens Are Migrating In Greater Numbers To “Com” Groups
- The White Hatter
- 6 minutes ago
- 10 min read
CAVEAT- Last summer, we published an article titled “Why Teens Are Starting to Tune Out of Social Media and Turning to Private Chat Platforms” (1). Since that time, and as more countries move toward age-gating traditional social media platforms, we have seen this shift accelerate. Even more young people are now gravitating toward private chat spaces, commonly referred to as “Com” groups, where their social interactions feel more controlled, personal, and less visible to adults and government regulators.
When parents and caregivers hear the phrase social media, they picture public posts, follower counts, comments, and viral videos. That mental model is increasingly out of date.
Today, youth and teens are migrating their social life to what are commonly know as “Com” groups. Short for community groups, these are private or semi private digital spaces where youth interact with people they feel connected to. These spaces are not about performance or visibility. They are about connection and belonging. Like any platform, these Com groups can be used for good or bad intentions. Understanding how these groups work, why youth and teens gravitate toward them, and where real risks and opportunities exist is essential for modern digital parenting, thus the reason for this article.
Note - Those reading this article should not mistake the broader understanding of what a Com group is, with the very concerning radicalized and criminal group called “The Com” network (2) . Having said this, “The Com” network does utilize Com group communications to interact with one another and their victims.
A Com group is not a specific app or platform, it’s a type of space. It can exist inside a group chat, a private server, an invite only channel, a gaming lobby, or in private messaging platforms such as Telegram or Signal. What defines a Com group is not the technology, but the social function.
Most Com groups are defined first by controlled access. Entry is typically managed through invites, approval links, or admin permissions, which creates a sense that the space is reserved for people who belong. That gatekeeping is part of what makes these groups feel safer and more personal to youth, even when the platform itself is large or public facing.
Once inside, the experience feels private, even if it technically is not. Messages may be logged, screenshotted, or stored on servers, but the social atmosphere is one of intimacy and trust. Given the Com group audience feels small and familiar, young people often let their guard down in ways they would not on a public feed, which can also invite danger.
These Com groups are often held together by shared identity or connection. Members are there for a reason, whether that is friendship, a gaming community, a fandom, a school connection, or a shared experience. That common thread creates a sense of belonging and mutual understanding that reinforces participation.
Most importantly, conversations in Com groups is relational rather than performative. The goal is not likes, views, or public validation. Interaction is ongoing, conversational, and shaped by relationships. What is said matters because of who is present, not because of how it will look to an outside audience. For today’s youth and teen, these spaces feel closer to real life social circles than public social media ever did.
Parents and caregivers are often surprised to learn that Com groups can exist in places they already associate with low risk and can commonly appear in:
Group chats inside mainstream social apps
Private or unlisted servers on platforms like Discord
Encrypted messaging apps used for group communication
Gaming platforms with persistent chat or voice channels
From a youth or teen’s perspective, these are not “social media platforms.” They are social rooms where you can hang our with friends. Youth and teens consistently tell us these spaces feel more authentic. Public platforms such as Instagram or TikTok come with external pressure. Likes, follows, screenshots, and algorithmic visibility all shape behaviour, whereas Com groups remove much of that pressure.
Youth and teens are drawn to these spaces because they offer a genuine sense of belonging without public judgment. In Com groups, youth and teens are not performing for an invisible audience or worrying about how strangers might interpret their words. The smaller, familiar circle reduces the pressure to self-censor or curate an image or video, making it easier to feel accepted as they are.
These spaces also allow for conversation without performance. Unlike public social media, where posts are often shaped by likes, comments, and algorithms, Com groups prioritize back and forth dialogue. What matters is the relationship, not how the interaction appears to others. This creates room for more honest, spontaneous communication.
Com groups can also support identity exploration without constant comparison. In public feeds, youth and teens are regularly exposed to highlight reels that invite comparison around appearance, popularity, or success. Private group spaces reduce that noise. Without the steady comparison to curated profiles, youth and teens have more freedom to explore interests, opinions, and aspects of identity at their own pace.
These spaces give youth and teens a sense of control over who is present. Choosing who is allowed into a group helps youth and teens feel safer and more autonomous. That control reinforces trust within the group and strengthens the feeling that the space belongs to them, not to an algorithm or a broader public.
In many ways, these groups meet normal developmental needs for connection, exploration, and autonomy. That matters, because when healthy needs are met in healthy ways, risk often decreases. However, they can also become a breeding ground for less than desirable behaviour as you will read.
That does not mean something bad is automatically happening. However, it does mean that relying only on what you can see will leave large gaps in understanding. We regularly hear from parents and caregivers who connect with us because something is wrong with their child say:
“Their profile looked fine.”
“There were no warning signs on their account.”
“We never saw any messages like that.”
In nearly every case, the activity that mattered most was happening inside a private group space.
These Com groups are not always all sugar and spice and everything nice. However, it’s important to say this clearly, private community spaces are also not inherently dangerous. Many are supportive, creative, and deeply meaningful for youth. Some provide peer support youth and teens do not feel elsewhere. Risk in Com groups rarely appears all at once, it tends to emerge gradually, when several conditions begin to stack together and reinforce one another.
One of the most common starting points is little or no adult awareness of these types of communication groups. This does not mean parents or caregivers are disengaged or careless. Often, they simply do not realize where social interaction has shifted. When parents and caregivers are completely outside the loop, there is no trusted checkpoint where a young person can reality test what they are seeing, hearing, or being asked to do. Without that external perspective, problematic behaviour can go unchallenged longer than it should.
Risk increases further when there is rapid normalization of harmful behaviour. Inside close knit groups, ideas, language, or actions that would raise concern in public spaces can quickly begin to feel ordinary. Jokes escalate, boundaries blur, and repetition creates familiarity. Over time, what once felt uncomfortable can start to feel expected, especially when no one pauses to question it.
Another key factor is pressure to conform inside a trusted circle. In groups built on belonging and acceptance, young people may feel compelled to go along with behaviour they privately question. The desire to stay included, avoid conflict, or not disappoint peers can outweigh personal judgment. This pressure is often subtle, but it can be powerful, particularly for youth who place a high value on connection.
Risk escalates when there is migration from one platform to another to avoid oversight. When conversations are intentionally moved to spaces perceived as less visible or less regulated, something commonly know as “off platforming”, it can signal that group norms are drifting away from healthy boundaries. Each move further reduces accountability and increases isolation, making it harder for adults to intervene and harder for youth to ask for help if something goes wrong.
Individually, any one of these factors may not be alarming. However, when they stack together, they create conditions, such as radicalization or sexual predation, where risk can grow quietly and quickly. This is something we wrote about specific to the sadistic and radicalized group known as “764” (3) and other similar type groups who will use Com groups to connect with youth and teens.
It is also important for parents to understand that while Com groups often feel private to the people inside them, that privacy is largely perceived, not guaranteed. These spaces may be closed to outsiders, but there is nothing preventing someone within the group from screenshotting, screen-recording, or saving conversations and then sharing them publicly or using them as leverage later.
We have recently supported several teens who learned this the hard way. Content they believed was confined to a trusted group was taken out of context and reposted publicly, sometimes to embarrass, intimidate, or retaliate. In those moments, the sense of safety the group once provided disappeared instantly.
This is why it is critical for youth and teens to understand that privacy inside a group depends entirely on the behaviour of its members, not the platform itself. Trust can shift, friendships can fracture, and group dynamics can change quickly. Helping teens think ahead about how shared content could be used if relationships sour is an essential part of modern digital literacy, especially in spaces that feel closed and secure.
Social AI Com Groups, The New Frontier
Alongside private Com groups built around friends, gaming, or shared interests, we are seeing the rise of Social AI com groups (4). These are digital spaces where artificial intelligence is not just a tool in the background, but an active part of the social environment. This is not science fiction, and teens are already engaging in these spaces.
A Social AI Com group is a community space where AI plays a social role, either directly or indirectly. Unlike traditional group chats that are purely human, these spaces may include:
AI characters that users interact with regularly
AI bots that respond, role-play, or guide conversations
Communities built around shared AI interactions
Group spaces where AI content shapes how people connect
The AI is not just answering homework questions, it’s participating in conversation, influencing tone, and sometimes becoming emotionally significant to the user. One of the clearest examples parents and caregivers will hear about is Companionship AI and the communities built around it (5)(6).
Companionship AI allows users to chat with AI characters that have personalities, memory, and conversational depth. Youth and teens use it to:
Talk through their day
Role play fictional or emotional scenarios
Explore identity, relationships, or creativity
Seek comfort or validation
What transforms individual AI use into a true Com experience is what happens after the one to one interaction. Many teens do not keep these AI conversations to themselves. Instead, they bring them into private Com group chats where peers gather specifically around shared AI experiences. At that point, the AI interaction becomes social, communal, and reinforcing.
Within these spaces, teens often share AI conversations or screenshots with one another. These excerpts become conversation starters, sources of validation, or points of comparison. Seeing how an AI responded to someone else can influence expectations, normalize certain topics, or encourage others to try similar prompts or emotional disclosures.
Teens also recommend specific AI characters to one another, often describing them in relational terms. A character might be framed as supportive, funny, understanding, or good for talking through certain feelings. These recommendations carry social weight, especially in trusted groups, and can guide how others engage with AI or what they seek from it.
In some groups, members collaborate on building or refining AI personas. This might include adjusting prompts, personalities, backstories, or behavioural traits to make the AI feel more responsive or emotionally attuned. The process itself becomes a shared creative activity, strengthening Com group bonds while deepening the role AI plays in the social environment.
These spaces become places where teens discuss the emotional experiences they had with the AI. They may talk about feeling understood, comforted, or supported during a difficult moment. When those emotional responses are validated by peers, the AI’s role can feel more legitimate and meaningful, even though the underlying interaction remains algorithmic. At that point, the Com group is no longer just about technology. It is about shared meaning, emotional reinforcement, and social connection shaped by AI. The group is not just about the app, it’s about a shared social experience shaped by AI.
From a developmental standpoint, this makes sense. Social AI spaces offer:
Conversation without fear of judgment
Interaction without social risk
Attention on demand
A sense of being heard
For some youth and teens, particularly those who feel misunderstood, isolated, anxious, or hesitant in social situations, interacting with AI can feel less risky than talking to people. There is no fear of judgment, rejection, or saying the wrong thing. When those AI interactions are then shared and affirmed inside a Com group, the experience can become even more reinforcing, both emotionally and socially.
This dynamic is especially attractive late at night, during periods of heightened stress, or at moments when a teen does not feel ready or safe bringing concerns to an adult. Over time, these spaces can unintentionally become gateways for at risk or vulnerable youth to material, conversations, or influences that are not in their best interest emotionally, psychologically, physically, or socially.
This is why focusing only on platform bans or app controls misses the point. Risk is social, not just technical. When adults remove access without understanding function, young people adapt. We see this constantly where:
Conversations move to new apps
Accounts become secondary or hidden
Devices are repurposed, commonly known as “burner” devices (7)
Trust erodes while secrecy increases
Removing a space does not remove the need it was meeting. Effective digital parenting starts with curiosity, not control.
At The White Hatter, we do not believe the goal is to eliminate risk, that is not realistic. The goal is to build agency, resilience, judgment, and connection. Com groups are now becoming a part of how young people socialize and are migrating to today. Understanding Com groups allows parents and caregivers to guide rather than react, participate rather than panic, and support rather than surveil.
Parenting and caregiving in an onlife world is not about having perfect controls or being the perfect parents. It is about staying present, informed, and engaged, even when the spaces are not fully visible. That presence, more than any social media platform, app or setting, is what keeps youth and teens safer online.
Knowledge, and the understanding and application of that knowledge, is power
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
