Chapter 3: Why Are Youth So Attracted to Social Media? We are often asked, “Why are youth so attracted to social media?” This is not an easy question to answer, but we’ve identified five specific reasons: #1) Entertainment: YouTube to our kids is just like a cable TV channel was to us as adults. Teens turn to social media for news, entertainment, to create memories, learn new skills, and experience laughter and tears. #2) Information: Where we once used libraries for research, today’s teens use Google, Wikipedia, or simply ask Siri. #3) It’s a personal space to call their own: Teens appreciate that many social media platforms offer spaces free from the peering eyes of parents and adults. We need to be reflective—remember when we were teens and wanted to get away from our parents? We went to a friend’s house, the movies, or played basketball. Today’s teens are doing the same thing—it’s just happening digitally. #4) To socialize: Teens love to socialize, and social media allows them to do that 24/7. Today’s online teen is all about finding community. #5) Monetization / iFandom: We met a teen who said he didn’t need a paper route to earn money—he monetized his YouTube channel instead. As social scientist Dr. Danah Boyd  states in her excellent book It’s Complicated : “Teens hang out, gossip, flirt, people watch, joke around, and jockey for status. These dynamics are at the heart of teen life… so they relish any opportunity to log in and engage with peers online.” From a brain development standpoint, Dr. Sherry Turkle  from MIT adds: “...they have a brain that is wired for what in psychology is called seeking behavior—the kind of thing that a Google search gives you: something new, something stimulating, something different.” In their insightful book Behind Their Screens: What Teens Are Facing , authors and researchers Emily Weinstein and Carrie James  explain: “Teens are primed to crave and value social validation, which is part of how they make sense of where they fit into their social worlds. Their biological sensitivities to social feedback make them more susceptible to the pull of social media, which is at the ready with a promise of 24/7 access to likes and praising comments. Capacities for self-regulation and impulse control are also a work in progress during the teen years, which adds to the challenges of pulling away.” Based on the sociological and psychological research to date, we believe the reason why social media is so popular with teens boils down to three basic needs they seek: Curiosity The joy of discovery Peer engagement So, Is Social Media Good or Bad for Our Kids? To answer this, we like to use the analogy of a hammer:A hammer can be used as a weapon to harm, or it can be used as a tool to build and create. Social media is no different. We believe most teens are using social media positively —to express creativity, learn new skills, and connect meaningfully with others. Later in this e-book, we’ll share examples to demonstrate this point. The Teen Brain on Social Media Most parents understand that the part of the brain responsible for self-control—the prefrontal cortex —isn’t fully developed until a person’s early twenties. Combine this with the brain’s ventral striatum —a system linked to decision-making and reward-seeking behavior—and it’s no wonder that teens may sometimes act impulsively. This biological setup creates a “perfect storm,” where decisions are often made emotionally rather than logically. As a result, teens may make poor decisions socially, emotionally, and even sexually. Have you ever asked your teen, “Why would you ever do that?” or “That was a really stupid thing to do”? Maybe it’s because of their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex… or maybe it’s something more. We recently wrote an article challenging the common belief that brain development alone explains teen behavior—more on that later in this e-book. Teens often live in the “now” and don’t always pause to think: “If I do this, then that could happen later.” This is why reinforcing safety, security, privacy, and digital literacy messages —as we do in this e-book—is so important. Teens might call it “parental nagging.” And yes, that’s exactly what it is. But research shows that repetition helps to embed important concepts  in the developing teen brain.This is especially crucial for youth under the age of 13 . Most social media platforms require users to be at least 13 years old, but many parents don’t know this. A 2022 UK study  found: “Just four in ten parents of children aged 3–17 knew the minimum age requirement for most social media; 42% correctly said 13. Four in ten parents of 8–11-year-olds said they would allow their child to use social media (38%).”📚  Study Link A 2021 report  from Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan found that: Half of children aged 10–12 and one-third of children aged 7–9 were using social media apps—despite these apps' Terms of Service prohibiting users under 13.📚  Study Link This trend is also reflected in Common Sense Media’s  report, which states: “On average, 8- to 12-year-olds use about five and a half hours of screen media per day.”📚  Common Sense Report And again, the 2022 UK report  found: “A majority of children under 13 had their own profile on at least one social media platform. 33% of parents of 5–7-year-olds said their child had a profile, and 60% of 8–11s said they had one.”📚  Study Link Parenting Tip: Yes, teen brains are still developing—especially in areas related to critical thinking and impulse control. But based on our experience, we’ve seen plenty of adults —with fully developed brains—do things online that are far more mean-spirited, hateful, and criminal  than teens ever would. So we need to be cautious about blaming only brain development . External factors—like the disinhibition effect  of digital platforms—also play a role. We’ll explore that concept further in this web book. https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/navigating-digital-dilemmas-questioning-the-conventional- wisdom-surrounding-teen-brain-development-and-online-behaviour/   The Goal: Managing Risks & Maximizing Opportunities Yes, onlife risks and opportunities go hand in hand. The goal for parents and caregivers is to help youth learn how to manage the risks , based on facts—not fear—and how to leverage opportunities  in healthy and positive ways. This is exactly what we strive to accomplish in all of our digital literacy and social media safety programs at The White Hatter , and it’s the guiding philosophy behind this e-book. But Why Can’t They Just Stop? We often hear from parents, “If social media is causing them stress, why don’t they just log off?” It's a fair question—but one that reveals how adults and teens experience the onlife world very differently. Teens aren’t just scrolling for fun. They’re living  in these spaces. Social media is integrated into how they experience friendships, status, identity, connection, and even self-worth. Logging off can feel like being socially invisible, or even socially abandoned. For many teens, social media is not optional—it’s essential  to their sense of belonging. In the analog days, missing a group hangout might mean you were left out of a single event. Today, missing a Snapchat streak or group chat update can make a teen feel left behind in every  conversation that matters to their peer group. The “Fear of Missing Out” (FOMO) is not just a buzzword—it’s a powerful emotional driver that’s intensified by the constant connectivity of apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Discord. Even when they do  want a break, algorithmic design can make it incredibly difficult. Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, notifications, streaks, and reward-based metrics are purposefully engineered to capture and hold attention. This isn’t just about poor self-control—this is about persuasive design. As digital wellness advocate Dr. Nir Eyal explains: "Technology is not inherently addictive; it becomes so when it's designed to hook. And today's platforms are optimized to hijack our attention, especially for those whose brains are still under construction.” What Parents Can Do Rather than banning social media or panicking over screen time, our approach encourages parents to do three key things: 1. Stay Curious, Not Furious Ask your teen what they enjoy online. What’s their favorite app right now? Who do they follow and why? Which platforms make them feel better—or worse—about themselves? Use these questions as conversation starters, not judgment traps. When we lead with curiosity instead of criticism, teens are more likely to open up and let us in. 2. Shift From Screen Time to Screen Value Time spent online isn’t all equal. There’s a big difference between mindlessly consuming content and creatively producing it. Is your teen watching videos… or making them? Are they comparing themselves to influencers… or using social media to inspire others or support a cause? Shift the focus from how long  they’re online to what they’re doing  and how it’s making them feel . 3. Teach Digital Self-Regulation Just like we teach kids how to manage money or emotions, we need to teach them how to manage their digital lives. This means helping them recognize when they’re being emotionally triggered by likes or comments, when it’s time to log off, and how to practice digital hygiene—like turning off notifications, setting app limits, or taking screen breaks. The Onlife Balancing Act The reality is that social media isn’t going anywhere. It’s a foundational part of teen life today. The goal is not to eliminate risk—it’s to raise informed, empathetic, and digitally literate young people who can thrive both online and offline. At The White Hatter, we often say: “Don’t delay the conversation— redirect it  toward critical thinking, responsible choices, and healthy engagement.” Because in the end, social media isn’t the villain or the hero—it’s the stage. And our youth are the actors trying to figure out who they are and how they want to show up in the world. Let’s give them the tools—and the trust—to do it wisely.

In writing this web book, there were two goals that we wanted to achieve: #1: We wanted to encourage parents to enable their child, age-appropriate, to engage online in a safe and secure way based upon good evidence-based research, and #2: Help parents to achieve goal #1 This is one reason why we have adopted Professor Sonia Livingstone & Professor Mariya Stoilova concept of the 4C’s to online risk  https://bit.ly/3cuNzaG Content Contact Conduct Contract and what we as parents and caregivers can do to minimize these risks Parental Juvenoia: Sociologist Dr. David Finkelhor defines Juvenoia as, “the exaggerated fear or hostility directed by an older generation towards youth culture that causes a moral panic” . Juvenoia is nothing new, in 400 BC the philosopher Plato stated, “….writing will cease to exercise memory because people will not rely on that which is written.”, in 1876 the new tech device called a phone was demonized,  in 1889 electricity and the lightbulb were seen to be an “unrestrained demon”, in 1895 bicycles were believed to cause a health concern known as “bicycle face” in women. In 1907, teddy bears, yes teddy bears, were labeled by the church as a “horrible monstrosity” that’ll destroy humanity, and that this new toy would ruin young girls’ developing maternal instincts and lead us to a terrible fate. In the 1930’s psychiatrists believed that radio, and even too much reading, would ruin the moral fabric of teens. In the 1940s, the medical community believed that some comic books, like Batman and Robin, would promote homosexuality in teens. Then in the 1950s, it was Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and Rock & Roll that would ruin the moral fabric of teens. In the 1960s, it was television. In the 1980s, it was a board game called Dungeons and Dragons. Today, it’s smartphones and video games that are going to ruin the moral fabric of our youth. Here’s a great resource that looks at juvenoia and moral panic throughout the ages  https://bit.ly/3iIEfmM As Professor Shapiro of Temple University stated in 2019, “Kids aren’t losing themselves in their devices but potentially finding themselves.  What’s more, they’re doing exactly what generations of kids have long done by immersing themselves in the toys and objects of the moment that reflect the society they inhabit, and which will help prepare them for the future” . We couldn’t agree more with Professor Shapiro’s statement.  Most parents reading this web book were born and raised in one of the above-noted generations, and we would argue that most of us are doing ok. We would suggest that this generation of teens is going to be ok as well. Juvenoia is also a catalyst for what psychologist Dr. Odgers in 2019 called a “parental moral panic”. As Dr. Odgers stated, “We’re all looking in the wrong direction.  The real threat isn’t smartphones, it’s the campaign of misinformation and the generation of fear among parents and educators.” Case Study: A good example of a parental moral panic, the “MoMo Challenge” that went viral in early 2019. What was the MoMo challenge, according to Snopes Dot Com. “…a form of cyberbullying prevalent on platforms such as WhatsApp and YouTube, through which children receive anonymous threatening messages tied to pictures of ‘Momo,’ an unrelated sculpture of a grinning figure with dark hair and bulging eyes created by a Japanese special effect company. The ‘Momo’ messages allegedly compelled youngsters to engage in perilous activities such as taking pills, stabbing other people, and even killing themselves.” First, and most importantly, this challenge was a hoax that went viral. The MoMo challenge first surfaced in late 2016, but in early 2019 it resurfaced in many parent blogs online. The Momo challenge became such a perceived safety concern to teens, that schools and even some police departments sent warnings home to parents to warn them about the danger of Momo. It is important to note that some really good investigative reporting found that there  HAS NOT BEEN ONE CREDIBLE DEATH  associated with this challenge,  www.netfamilynews.org/about-momo-dealing-with-viral-media-scares   but because of the internet, many believed that hundreds of children had taken their lives, or self-harmed, because of MoMo. What really made this challenge dangerous was how parents fanned the flames of moral panic and juvenoia, based upon inaccurate information, that social media can often propagate and spread at lightning speed online. Was there a concern for younger kids online who were coming across inaccurate information related to the MoMo Challenge? Yes, especially If a child did not have the critical thinking skills to recognize when a video is clearly promoting absurd and disturbing content that is not based upon fact. If a young person accidentally or purposely saw this “spoofed” challenge, it could have been emotionally and psychologically disturbing. Kids not knowing any better, combined with the moral panic narrative of adults, based upon false information, created the perfect onlife juvenoia storm. Parents should have been using the MoMo challenge as a teachable moment for their kids, rather than a frightening moment. MoMo was a great example of why youth, and even adults, need to think more critically about what they encounter online, and why it is important to always ask themselves, “Is this real?” We truly understand the concerns parents had over the MoMo Challenge given the unjustifiable attention it had been given in the news, but adults have to be very careful that we too don’t get caught up in the moral panic these hoaxes often unjustifiably illicit. Parental Moral Panic and Mental Wellness: Another great example of Juvenoia and how it can spread a parental moral panic – clickbait news headlines about how technology can negatively affect a teen’s mental wellness.  We believe it is important to note, good academic peer-reviewed research is still in its infancy specific to this topic.  However, over the past few years, we have been seeing some really good peer-reviewed research that is shining a light, and providing more insight on this issue, that we want to bring to your attention. In journalism, there is a maxim known as “Betteridge’s Law” which states,  “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” Sensational headlines, known as clickbait, often pose a moral panic-based question in hopes that readers and content providers will share the content with others to increase its circulation. Some examples of headlines, “Can cellphones cause horns to grow on your head” or “Can TikTok Videos Cause Tic-Like Behaviours in Teens?” Most parents believe, usually based upon anecdotal opinions reported in the media, but not supported by good peer-reviewed research, that social media is causing all kinds of teen mental wellness issues.  Really? How about a 2018 study of 350,000 teens from across the UK and the United States conducted by Oxford University that found, “Social media use has a nearly negligible effect if adolescent psychological wellbeing (.04% variance) when it comes to depressive symptoms, suicidal ideations, relationship problems or pro-social relationships” (picture circle graph) Or what about a 2018 study conducted by the Department of Psychology, Brock University and Redeemer University College in the United Stated that found, “Results indicate that among both samples, social media use did not predict depressive symptoms over time for males of females.  However, greater depressive symptoms predicted more frequent social media use only among adolescent girls.  Thus, while it is often assumed that social media may lead to depressive symptoms, our results indicate that this assumption may be unwarranted” Or what about a 2019 University of North Carolina study that found, “…technology use did not predict later mental health symptoms.  Adolescents reported mental health was also not worse on days when they reported spending more versus less time on technology” Further, the North Carolina study found, “Adolescents at a higher risk for mental health problems also exhibited no signs of increased risk for mental health problems on higher technology use days” Or what about another academic 2019 study by Jensen, George, Russell and Odgers that found. “Adolescents’  technology use did not predict later mental-health symptoms.”    and   “Adolescents at higher risk for mental health problems also exhibited no signs of increased risk for mental health problems on higher technology use days.” Or what about another academic November 2020 study by Heather Shaw, David A. Ellis, Kristoffer Geyer, Brittany I. Davidson, Fenja V. Ziegler, and Alice Smith that found: “We conclude that addressing people’s appraisals including worries about their technology usage is likely to have greater mental health benefits than reducing their overall smartphone use. Reducing general smartphone use should therefore not be a priority for public health interventions at this time.” In fact, the authors of this study stated further in this article that expands on their research  https://bit.ly/33BnHXa   “We found that, on average, people spent around four hours a day on their smartphones, picking them up between 85 and 133 times. However, the amount of use did not predict a person’s anxiety, depression, or stress levels when asked to rate their symptoms on clinical questionnaires” “Claims suggesting that smartphones are ruining a generation are incorrect yet remain impactful. This leads people to believe that general smartphone use is linked to poor mental health, and these concerns are common in adolescents.” “As our research confirms, even if specific worries in relation to mobile technology are widespread, reducing general smartphone use – or pausing use completely – is unlikely to have mental health benefits.” Or what about this December 2020 academic peer-reviewed 9-year longitudinal study  https://bit.ly/34dphyK  where they followed 4,338 teens.  One of the authors stated: “Based on this unique data set and thus a comparatively long time frame, we found no substantial relationships between media use and well-being” Here’s a 2021 peer-reviewed longitudinal study, “Social media use intensity, social media use problems, and mental health among adolescents: Investigating directionality and mediating process”  https://bit.ly/3o98HXQ   This study found  social media use intensity (how long a youth is online) and mental health were not associated in any direction; suggesting harmful effects of social media use are limited. Here’s another 2021 peer-reviewed study that was published in February that stated in its conclusions,   “overall, there was little to no evidence showing that technology is becoming more negatively associated with mental health over time” https://psyarxiv.com/nv5qj Here’s another 2021 peer-reviewed longitudinal study that was published in April that stated in its conclusion,  “… results do not support policies intended to encourage or discourage media use because of effects on well-being.”  In other words, this study strengthens many other studies mentioned in this  web-book that different types of social media have very little effect on well-being  https://psyarxiv.com/zgb5y Here’s another 2021 peer-reviewed Oxford University study that was published in May that found “little association” between technology use and mental health.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702621994549 Or how about this 2019 report that was published by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, that discusses  how social media can actually benefit those with mental wellness challenges This 2019 report is further supported by a research paper released in March 2021 by Common Sense Media, that can be located here:  https://bit.ly/3tJtTGZ In an August 2021 research paper titled, “Positive and Negative Online Experiences and Loneliness in Peruvian Adolescents During the COVID-19 Lockdown”  https://bit.ly/2XkiaEb  the researchers found: “There has been this negative discourse about screen time causing loneliness and depression. But our findings provide more nuance and show that, when used positively, online interactions are actually associated with less loneliness. This is especially true when teenagers have no other option but to connect with their friends online” In September 2015, the US National Institute of Health launched the largest longitudinal (long-term) study – approximately 12,000 youth, specific to brain development and child and adolescent health. This research is known as the “Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study” or the “ABCD Study”. According to the NIH, the ABCD study “integrates structural and functional brain imaging; genetic testing; and neuropsychological, behavioral, and other health assessments of study participants conducted over a 10-year period, yielding a substantial amount of information about healthy adolescent brain development.” A part of this study is to look at how “screen time” may be linked to challenges surrounding sleep, mental health, behaviour, and friendships. Upon the launch of this study, it was identified by many to be the gold standard when it comes to multi-disciplinary research that would help parents and caregivers understand the effects of technology on youth brain development.  This study is extremely important given that many who are tech adverse believe that tech and screen time is negatively impacting the emotional, psychological, physical, and social development of our kids, especially those entering adolescents, and was “changing” the brain of our kids in a negative way. After six years, the researchers have published their findings thus far in a peer-reviewed paper that was just published in September 2021: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256591 Their conclusions: “Both weekday and weekend total screen time are moderately associated with greater behavioral problems including ADHD, poor academic performance and poor sleep quantity and quality. Conversely, screen time is positively associated with the quantity and quality of peer relationships. The effect of screen time on those outcome measures typically does not depend on sex. Observed effect sizes are small (<2% variance explained), with SES contributing much more to the variance in outcomes. Though these associations should be monitored and examined further as this study cohort ages in mid- and late- adolescence, our results are in line with a recent review  https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpp.13190  . It seems that screen time itself is not strongly associated with adverse outcomes in 9- and 10- year old children.” The last sentence is very important,  “It seems that screen time itself is not strongly associated with adverse outcomes in 9- and 10- year old children.” In fact, one of the study’s researchers, Katie Paulich, stated in an interview: “Our results, found no association between screens and a child’s depression or anxiety. Greater amounts of screen time were associated with stronger peer relationships for both boys and girls – both have more male and female friends. Social screen use may drive that association; video gaming, for instance, is a social activity that seems to foster more friendships. So do social media and texting.” Now did this study also find some challenges? – yes it did. Again, a quote from Katie Paulich: “More screen time predicted higher levels of attention problems, worse sleep, poorer academic performance, and an increase in aggression and misbehavior. Taken at face value, these contrasting positive and negative correlations are confusing. Is screen time good or bad? Perhaps neither one: When looking at the strength of the correlations, we see only very modest associations. That is, any association between screen time and the various outcomes, whether good or bad, is so small it’s unlikely to be important at a clinical level.” Those who promote the narrative that tech does increase aggression, attention problems, sleep challenges, and academic performance will point to this paragraph and say, “Ah-ha, told you so”. However, they will neglect the last sentence which is most important for context, “ That is, any association between screen time and the various outcomes, whether good or bad, is so small it’s unlikely to be important at a clinical level.” In an October 2021 meta-analysis paper called “Screen media and mental health”  https://bit.ly/3kSjAyi  the researchers looked at 33  separate studies from 2015-2019 and reported: “Across studies, evidence suggests that screen media plays little role in mental health concerns. In particular, there was no evidence that screen media contribute to suicidal ideation or other mental health outcomes. This result was also true when investigating smartphones or social media specifically. Overall, as has been the case for previous media such as video games, concerns about screen time and mental health are not based in reliable data.” In late 2021, there was a leak of Facebook internal documents that revealed that their platforms, especially Instagram, increased rates or anxiety and depression, especially among teen girls.  This revelation caught significant media attention and was held out to be the smoking gun by some special interest groups to prove that social media had a direct negative effect on youth mental health, especially when it came to depression. It should be noted that this leak did not include the research used by Facebook (now Meta) to support the statement in the leaked document. As Dr. Candice Odgers (developmental psychologist with a specialty in adolescent mental health) stated,  “we have to guard against the increasing young female vulnerability narrative”  Here are two very recent longitudinal evidence-based peer-reviewed research studies that support Dr. Odgers statement: A May 2021 Swedish longitudinal study  https://bit.ly/3HvTjjB  , where the researchers followed 3,501 14-15 year old girls for two years found: “We found between-person rather than within-person positive associations between social media use and symptoms of mental ill health. This suggests that social media use may serve as an indicator rather than a determinant of risk of mental health problems among adolescents. In a 2019 Canadian-based longitudinal study  https://bit.ly/3QzBvIH  , that followed 594 adolescents for two years found: “…social-media use did not predict depressive symptoms over time for males or females. However, greater depressive symptoms predicted more frequent social-media use only among adolescent girls. Thus, while it is often assumed that social-media use may lead to depressive symptoms, our results indicate that this assumption may be unwarranted.” Once again, the bulk of research supports the fact that a balanced approach to screen time is “not likely to yield dire consequences” in most youth. Yes, there are some “problematic” contraindications to the unbalanced use of technology, such as sleep deprivation, that “some” youth may experience (most do not) that parents need to be aware of.  We speak to these challenges in our presentations and in this webbook. There has also been some very current research just released in January 2022  https://bit.ly/3G5uCs7    that found that there appears to be a slight correlation between time spent online to elevated negative health indicators. The conclusion of this research: “The present study found that social media use is associated with multiple indicators of physical health. Given the prevalence of social media in daily lives and the importance of social relationships to physical health, we call for additional research to examine the relationship between social media use and physical health by utilizing diverse methodologies.” However, we also must pay attention to some of the limitations of this study as identified by the authors: “This study has some limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of this study limits our ability to make causal or temporal inferences about the relation between social media use and physical health. For example, we cannot rule out the possibility that people with undermined health may use social media more (e.g., to seek health information or distraction from their dysphoria). Thus, future research should consider using longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causal and temporal effects. Second, the effect sizes found in this study are small (0.17 < βs < 0.20), although comparable to those typically found in studies on social media use and psychological well-being (−0.05 < rs < −0.15). Thus, it would be important to consider whether these effect sizes have clinical or practical significance. Finally, this study documented an aggregate association between overall amount of social media use and physical health. Although focusing on the amount of social media use—the most commonly studied variable—allowed us to connect to extant literature, this broad metric does not provide any insight into how people use social media. Given that people use social media for a variety of reasons, and that the ways in which they use social media can also influence their well-being, future research should examine how the types of social media use may relate to health.” It is medically well understood that any sedentary lifestyle can have a negative effect on our physical and mental health.  This is why taking a balanced approach to the use of social media, which includes daily physical activity, is important.  As you will read in the chapter on online gaming, professional e-gaming athletes understand how important physical fitness is in their sport to enhance their online performance. Another narrative that we have heard  – youth should be reading more books than reading online because it is better for their well-being. Is it? What about this January 2022 published peer-reviewed study  https://go.nature.com/3FRMFll  where they found: ” No effect of different types of media on well-being”  “It is often assumed that traditional forms of media such as books enhance well-being, whereas new media do not. However, we lack evidence for such claims and media research is mainly focused on how much time people spend with a medium, but not whether someone used a medium or not. We explored the effect of media use during one week on well-being at the end of the week, differentiating time spent with a medium and use versus nonuse, over a wide range of different media types: music, TV, films, video games, (e-)books, (digital) magazines, and audiobooks. Results from a six-week longitudinal study representative of the UK population 16 years and older (N = 2159) showed that effects were generally small; between-person relations but rarely within-person effects; mostly for use versus nonuse and not time spent with a medium; and on affective well-being, not life satisfaction.” Or what about this large study  https://bit.ly/3wMjhua   released in January 2022 where they found:  “…. in our study integrated technology into their (teens) lives in ways that were not associated with higher rates of depression, anxiety, or other poor health outcomes. Thus, the study findings indicate that most adolescents using technology do so in ways that do not lead to increased risk of negative health consequences.” This research also supports the fact that parents who engage with their kids in their onlife world, through parental communication and parental participation, those youth are far less likely to be involved in less than desirable online behavioral outcomes. As one of the study’s authors Yalda Uhls, PhD, at UCLA stated, “family-engaged groups seemed to be doing just fine, with positive health and well-being indicators in relationship to technology,” However, of note, this research also supports other research mentioned in this book, that those youth who are at most risk off line, are also more vulnerable to risk online. One last important note about this study, the authors stated that this research also supports the fact that we need to move away from focusing on the amount of time youth spend online (screen time), and concentrate more on what they are doing with that time online. In fact, the researchers stated: “We recommend a shift away from rules centered on screen time. Our evidence supports that household rules focused on content, communication, and coviewing were more likely to be associated with lower health risk and improved well-being” Now to be fair, there are some academic researchers, such as psychologist Dr.  Jean Twenge, author of the 2017 book “iGen”, who have conducted academic peer-reviewed research that provides a linkage between screen time and troubling signs of mental wellness.  https://bit.ly/2Z6lFvM  and  https://bit.ly/3x4YoZp Dr. Twenge’s research has shown that since the introduction of the smartphone, there has also come an increase in rates of depression being reported in youth. Our question is, “could this be because it is more socially acceptable for youth to talk openly about mental wellness challenges with parents and mental wellness professionals? According to Dr. Sonia Livingstone, Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE,  “Even ten years ago, the topic of mental wellness was shamed upon and something that nobody spoke about”, especially youth. Another 2018 research paper  https://bit.ly/2YNqkFX  found” “The magnitude of association between social media use and depressive symptoms was larger for girls than for boys” “Our findings highlight the potential pitfalls of lengthy social media use for young people’s mental health” In an April 2022 peer-reviewed research paper titled, “Time spent online and children’s self-reported life satisfaction in Norway: The socio-ecological perspective”  https://bit.ly/3O6ac6U   researchers contradict Dr Twenge’s early research where they found: “We actually find the opposite, that is to say a positive correlation between the self-reported quality of life of adolescents and the amount of time they spend online,” We think it is important to note that the researchers stated “association” not “causation”- this is an important distinction. The questions that should be asked are, “Is social media the primary source for mental wellness challenges, or is the use of social media a maladaptive coping strategy for underlying conditions such as depression or stress that can lead to problematic behaviour?”   We believe that the most current research is showing the latter. In a 2021 research study by Common Sense Media, Hopelab, and the California Health Care Foundation  called “Coping With Covid-19: How Young People Use Digital Media To Manage Their Mental Health” they found the following: 43% of teens stated using social media made them feel better when depressed, stressed, or anxious 40% stated that it made no difference in their mental health, and 17% stated social media made them feel worse Of interest, the 17% identified in the above-noted research was very congruent with the study done in 2018 called “Social Media Use and Adolescent Mental Health: Findings From the UK Millennium Cohort Study” that we mentioned earlier, that found a 15% increase in depressive symptoms amongst girls who use social media for an extended period of time. Maybe Age Can Have Developmental Sensitivity To Social Media Use & Life Satisfaction A 2022 study headed by Dr. Amy Orben at Oxford University (someone who we highly respect and have been following for years) was just published that shows initial, non-causal, but suggestive evidence of developmental sensitivity to social media use.  https://www.amyorben.com/pdf/2022_OrbenEtAl_NC.pdf  In this study, the researchers found: Some Girls may experience a negative link at 11-13, boys when they are 14-15, Increased social media use might also affect life satisfaction at aged 19, but Adolescents with lower life satisfaction consistently use social media more. The study actually found what is commonly known in psychology as the “Goldilocks Effect” – some people who use social media a lot tend to be more unhappy, some people who never use it, or use it very little, tend to be more unhappy, and those who take a balanced and moderate approach tend to be the happiest. After reading this study, we reached out to Dr. Andrew Przybylski via Twitter (one of the researchers in the study who we also highly respect and follow) and asked them: “Was the type of social media use considered? In other words, did the research provide insight into what type of social media led to the decrease in life satisfaction in these age groups?” Dr. Andrew Przybylski’s reply: “Hi Darren, no, and the data were collected over a wide range of years so it’s also possible that the share of any given platform at any given age varied over the time span of data collection.” Our question was important because it has been our anecdotal experience having presented to over 540,000 teens, that youth under the age of 15 are primarily using social media as consumers as a way to socially interact with peers and others their age, whereas those over the age of 15 are using social media more as creators and producers. In an article specific to this study Dr. Orben stated: “I wouldn’t say that there is a specific age group we should all be worried about. We should all be reflecting on our social media use and encouraging those conversations but we need to understand what is driving these changes across age groups and between genders. There are very large individual differences, so there may be certain teenagers that benefit from their use of social media whilst at the same time, someone else is harmed.” https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2022-03-28-negative-impact-social-media-affects-girls-and-boys-different-ages-study Dr Przybylski, another researcher in the study stated: “ This doesn’t constitute advice to parents that their children should abstain from social media,” says Przybylski. “It’s clear from the data that abstinence isn’t necessarily great, either.” Of interest to us is how current research surrounding digital peer aggression (cyberbullying) shows that the frequency of cyberbullying is higher in younger teens compared to older teens, especially among those who identify as female. The cyberbullying research also supports the fact that targets of digital peer aggression lead to a decrease in life satisfaction which is reflected in this Oxford study. So, what are the takeaways for us from this new Oxford research: More research is needed specific to developmental sensitivity to social media use & life satisfaction. We are hopeful that this study will catapult further research and why social media vendors like Meta, Snapchat, TikTok need to open up their data for independent academic peer review. This research is providing insight that there may be “some” teens at “certain” ages that “may” be more vulnerable when it comes to less than desirable developmental sensitivity to social media use & life satisfaction. Based on this research, and the fact that we cannot yet predict which youth are most at risk, we believe that it is reasonable for parents and caregivers to ensure they balance the type of social media and apps used by youth under the age of 15yrs specific to consumption vs creation and tech usage. Our article “Creating A Digital Onlife Balance” can help with this parental responsibility and is something that we speak about in Chapter 9. Tech, Neuroplasticity, and The Brain As a family, we became very aware of how infant and youth brains are very malleable to environmental demands, and thus, the brain can rewire itself to learn new skills. A part of this journey was a book recommended to us by our neurologist called, “The Brain That Changes Itself”  https://amzn.to/3xYsj9C  which dives deeply into the science behind what is called neuroplasticity. Because the human brain is malleable, especial amongst youth, repetition of skills can induce long-term changes in the structure of the brain  https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2412 So, what does this have to do with technology – research is starting to emerge showing that there may be an association between the amount of time a person spends on the Internet, what they are doing with that time (passive vs active), and how the amount of time spent online could cause changes in the brain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502424/ According to this emerging research, there is a possibility that heavy online use could either have a positive or negative effect on brain structure, function and therefore cognitive processes depending upon age. As the above-noted study stated: “ This may be of particular relevance to the developing brains of children and adolescents, as many cognitive processes (particularly those relevant to higher executive functions and social cognition) are not entirely innate, but rather are strongly influenced by environmental factors”  (like the amount of time spent on the internet and social media). This 2019 study also found – heavy use  of the Internet and social media (they didn’t define what “heavy use” was) could be influencing our brain’s cognitive process in a negative way specific to: Sustained focus, and memory processing Both of these can lead to memory deficits where a user can have the challenge of deciding what information is important enough to remember.  https://bit.ly/3xWpRR9 However, the study also stated: “the opposite may be true in older adults experiencing cognitive decline, for whom the online environment may provide a new source of positive cognitive stimulation. For instance, Internet searching engaged more neural circuitry than reading text pages in Internet savvy older adults (aged 55‐76 years). Furthermore, experimental studies have found that computer games available online and through smartphones can be used to attenuate aging‐related cognitive decline. Thus, the Internet may present a novel and accessible platform for adults to maintain cognitive function throughout old age. Building from this, successful cognitive aging has previously been shown to be dependent upon learning and deploying cognitive strategies, which can compensate for aging‐related decline in “raw” memory capacities. This has previously been referred to as optimizing internal cognitive processes (e.g., through mnemonic strategies), or taking advantage of cognitive offloading in traditional formats (list making, transactive memory, etc.). Nonetheless, as Internet‐based technologies become more deeply integrated with our daily cognitive processing (through smartphones, wearables, etc.), digital natives could feasibly develop forms of “online cognition” in the aging brain, whereby older adults can increasingly take advantage of web‐based transactive memory and other emerging online processes to fulfil (or even exceed)” the typical capacities of a younger brain. Our takeaway from this emerging field of research: It appears that heavy “passive” use of technology, the internet, and social media by youth may cause changes in brain structure, function, and cognitive processing ability. Having said this, we do not yet know if this will have long-term positive or negative consequences, but it’s enough of a concern that it should be flagged by parents. The opposite may be true in older adults experiencing cognitive decline, for whom the online environment may provide a new source of positive cognitive stimulation Yes, it appears that the use of technology can affect human brain malleability, especially among youth, repetition of skills can induce long-term changes in the structure of the brain. No matter if it is the use of  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19820707/   or learning a new motor skill like juggling   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25542777/ Once again, this emerging research specific to tech, neuroplasticity, and the brain confirms our message throughout this book – It’s all about balanced use of technology, and how it is being used (passive vs active) when it comes to the emotional, psychological, physical, and social well-being our kids.  Too much of anything is not good for you; it doesn’t matter if it is food, exercise, or the use of technology! Again, we are not saying that social media does not play a role in the mental wellness of teens.  What we are saying is that it may play a multifactorial role, both good and bad, depending upon the teen. In their book, ” Digital Media and Child and Adolescent Mental Health”, Dr’s O’Reilly, Dogra, Levine, and Donoso stated: “There are populations who have faced adversity or multiple adversities, or become of certain personal characteristics may not have the cognitive, social, or emotional maturity to handle digital risks Looked-after children (those in care; fostered, adopted, or in residential care) Children with mental health conditions Children with disabilities or other forms of special educational needs, or intellectual disabilities Children who have experienced trauma Children who have experienced domestic violence or abuse” In other words, youth who may be struggling with the above noted, are more likely to have negative experiences online as well. Our friends Dr. Justin Patchin and Dr. Sammer Hinduja with the Cyberbullying Research Center have stated: “the harm experienced online by those who are already vulnerable tends to be of greater severity than harm experienced by their peers.” Some who promote that technology, especially cellphones, is the reason why we have seen an increase in mental wellness and suicidal ideations challenges amongst teens, point to the fact that the iPhone was first released in 2007 and then became popular with teens in the mid-2000’s. These same groups use a statistical graph from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US to prove their point in an attempt to draw causation. These same groups only show us a partial snapshot of the graph that starts around the 2007/09 mark. However, what they fail to do is to show you the full graph that started in 1991. As Dr. Tyler Black (Medical Director of the CAPE Unit at BC Children’s Hospital and BC Mental Health and Substance Use Services, Suicidologist, and specialist in Paediatric Emergency Psychiatry) stated in a tweet: “2017 was lower than 2015, and 2019 is lower than 1999. the idea that media, social media, technology, or whatever else luddites hate is strongly correlated with increasing suicidal thinking in kids is ahistorical and dishonest.” Once again, Dr Black, a true expert in the field of youth and suicidality, stated that when it comes to youth in 2021: “We can firmly paint our kids in the “average position” of suicidality in the past 30 years.” Our message to parents and caregivers is, don’t let juvenoic moral panic clickbait headlines such as “Cellphones Cause Suicide and Mental Health Problems In Youth” prevent you from integrating technology, in a “balanced” way, into your child’s life. Sometimes, when it comes to difficult and challenging issues, such as suicide, it’s easier to look for the easiest thing to blame rather than the fact that often the causes are much more complex and multifactorial. Today, that thing is technology and cellphones. Over the past 24 months of COVID, we have read several articles in the media about how the increased use of tech during the pandemic by young adults has had a negative effect on their mental wellness.  Lots of anecdotal opinions were used to support this belief given that we had no good evidence-based peer-reviewed research to either support or debunk such a claim. Well, we now have the research that was just released in January 2022  https://psyarxiv.com/ucsh6/  “Does objectively-measured social media or smartphone use predict depression, anxiety, or social isolation among young adults?” that provides a contra opinion to this belief. We love reading academic research, which to most is like watching paint dry. However, we think the research mentioned in this webbook is important, given that it helps to guide parents and adults when it comes to understanding both the positives and negatives of social media and technology. Although we would love it if all parents would read the research, two important takeaways from this January 2022 study are: “We found limited evidence that three distinct yet commonly-investigated aspects of digital technology use—smartphone use duration (“screen time”) and frequency (i.e., “pickups”), and social media use duration—exhibited meaningful prospective associations with three commonly-investigated aspects of psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and social isolation. By meaningful we are not strictly referring to statistical significance but also practical significance.” “Our study provides robust evidence that, at a time of elevated digital technology use and psychological distress brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, fluctuations in digital technology use did not meaningfully contribute to fluctuations in psychological distress among young adults.” Now, there will always be an exception to the rule, but for most young adults this COVID-based tech study provides evidence that the increased use of social media and tech during COVID  DID NOT  cause an increase in depression, anxiety, or social isolation among youth adults. Just saying….. Another April 2022 study from Norway  https://bit.ly/3O6ac6U  surrounding teens and screen time found: “Despite public discourses highlighting the negative consequences of time spent online (TSO) for children’s well-being, Norwegian children (aged 9–16 years) use the Internet more than other European children and score higher on self-reported life satisfaction (SRLS). To explore the possibility that TSO might contribute to high life satisfaction or other underlying explanatory factors, we investigate the relationship between TSO and SRLS in Norway while also accounting for how individual, family, school, and broader social circumstances influence this relationship. Countering prevailing discourses, we find a positive relationship between TSO and SRLS, which remains positive and significant even after a wider range of variables are accounted for. By explaining the circumstances under which TSO has a positive effect on SRLS, this article provides evidence of the complex role that digital technology plays in the lives of children. It also provides a critique of the often simplistic arguments found in public discourses around children’s digital media use.” As one of the researchers of this report, Niamh Ní Bhroin, stated,  “We actually find the opposite, that is to say, a positive correlation between the self-reported quality of life of adolescents and the amount of time they spend online,”   Are there emotional, psychological, physical, and social challenges associated with onlife problematic behavior?  Yes, there are, and we will speak to some of these challenges that parents and teens need to be aware of in this webbook. Newer research is showing us that digital affordance, through the use of algorithms used by some social media platforms, can undermine mental wellness thus increasing exposure to online harmful content for some youth who are already at risk.   However, don’t believe all of the hype associated with social media, and its negative effects on mental wellness, as being “the” cause of this decline that is pushed by some special interest groups. As Dr. Sonia Livingstone stated, ” The relationship between digital life and mental health is best characterized by a complex mix of positive and negative influences varying over time both within and between individuals – conditioned and moderated by personal characteristics and cultural, historical, and socio-economic factors.”  https://bit.ly/36ecRY5 Again, we do believe that tech can play a role in youth mental wellness in today’s world, both negative and positive, but it is more nuanced and multifactorial than just tech. Those other multifactorial challenges that have been identified by experts in the mental health field include: Instability at school Increased family separation and divorce rates Parent/caregiver Job Loss Increased rates of child abuse Housing crisis Increased levels of child poverty in North America Lack of prevention and early intervention treatment and counseling for youth mental health Inflation and the cost of living in the home Student debt Teens who have lost one or more caregivers, close family members, and close friends during COVID Another interesting trend – how some media will actually misrepresent or skew the findings of a research study to create what is known as “clickbait”.  A good example was a study that was reported in a Canadian newspaper that stated: “Children who have more than two hours of screen time daily are more likely to display ADHD symptoms, study says.” This clickbait headline intimates a “causation” that screen time can cause ADHD. The actual title of the scientific article was “Screen-time is associated with inattention problems in preschoolers: Results from the CHILD birth cohort study.” Contextually a BIG difference!  In fact, nowhere in the actual research do the authors use the word “cause.” They specifically identified what they believe to be a correlation to inattention problems. Again, a BIG difference! I’m also confident that when these researchers submitted their study for publication in 2018, they were unaware of research by Oxford University on this topic that had been published; one of the largest longitudinal cohort studies of its kind. In fact, we could not find the Oxford study in their references. Why is this important, because the Oxford study found: “examining data from over 350,000 teenagers and parents in the UK and USA. At most, only 0.4% of adolescent wellbeing is related to screen use ” Also, in the media article, it was reported that this new research supports the Canadian Pediatrics’ position on screen time, but yet later in the article it stated, “Michelle Ponti, a London, Ont., a pediatrician who chairs the Canadian Pediatric Society’s digital health task force and was not involved in the new study, said some of its findings should be taken with a grain of salt.” Why did Mr. Ponti say this, because the British Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, the first pediatrics organization in the world to suggest screen time limits, which Canada adopted  https://bit.ly/3OAW6L9 , had now changed its position on screen time, based upon current research, as did many other pediatric organizations around the world? It’s not about how much time your child spends online, it’s what they are doing with that time that is most important, it’s all about balance, and this is something we will be speaking to in-depth later in this e-book. Here is some 2023 research that supports the Canadian Pediatric Society's recommendation that for children under the age of 6yrs, screen use should be kept to a minimum bit.ly/3HQsE2V So, what does this all mean? Based on the best research out there to date, it appears that screen time has little effect on the mental health functioning of the majority of youth. Screen time doesn’t cause ADHD.  What good research shows us is that we are born with ADHD. Having said this, parents should be alive to the fact that they should not be using technology as a “digital babysitter” or “digital pacifier”, which only acts like digital bubble gum for the brain. At young ages, organize screen time into reasonable limits that meet your family’s needs and beliefs, and use it as an adjunct to learning. Again, Sesame Street (positive learning) vs Sponge Bob Square Pants (bubble gum for the brain) analogy applies. Even some social media safety advocates are guilty of this trend.  As an example, in 2019 a social media safety advocate stated publicly, “1 in 5 teens is being cyberstalked. It takes only 2 minutes and a password for an abuser to install a tracking app on their partner’s phone” This same advocate attached a CBC video, specific to how spyware was being installed by abusers on teen phones to cyberstalk their victims, even though the video was specific to adults and not teens.  To further support their claim that 1 in 5 teens was being cyberstalked in Canada, they quoted a Stats Canada Study. Given our background in law enforcement, academic research, and social media safety advocacy, we had concerns about the accuracy of the stat that this expert quoted. We decided to actually read the entire Statistics Canada report that can be found here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-006-x/2016001/article/14693-eng.pdf?st=EFP0m-cJ The report found that 17% of the 15 to 29-year-old respondents were cyberbullied or cyberstalked. As we continued to read this report, Statistics Canada found that of this 17%, a smaller cohort of 64% stated that they had been cyberstalked. Of this number, only 9.8% were under the age of 18 years of age. So, given the above-noted numbers, the statement “1 in 5 teens in Canada are being cyberstalked” is factually incorrect, and extremely misleading. It is also our belief that attaching the CBC video, which was specific to adults and not teens, was also misleading. Teen digital relationship abuse via computers, cellphones, text messaging, and social networking websites are increasingly being used to monitor, threaten, and harass relationship partners, and is something that we speak to in our high school presentations. In fact, Dr. Sameer Hinduja and Dr. Justin Patching with the Cyberbullying Research Center found that 11% of 12 to 17-year-old teens reported that they had experienced some form of digital relationship abuse. PrevNet, a Canadian research group based at the University of Ottawa reported, 17.5% of Gr 9-10 students identified to have found themselves involved in this type of abuse. So, is it a reality that spyware could be used by teen abusers? Yes. Having said this, it is a rarity! This was another great example of how disinformation can fuel the flames of parental moral panic (juvenoia), specific to a teens’ use of technology. Parent Tip: Many media sources that talk about fa,ke challenges, or concerning mental wellness research surrounding the use of technology, often fail to provide any primary source, or good evidence-based peer-reviewed research, to support their claims. Before you believe a clickbait headline, make sure you do your research first. Also, remember that correlation does not always equal causation. Some very reputable sources that we turn to include: Dr. Sameer Hinduja and Dr. Justin Patchin – Directors at the Cyberbullying Research Center in the USA, Julie Inman Grant – Australian eSafety Commissioner, Dr. Cynthia Baxter – Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr. Patrick Markey – Director of the IR laboratory at Villanova University, Dr. Chris Ferguson – Psychologist, Mathew Johnson – Director of Education for MediaSmarts Canada, Dr. Margaret Newbury – sexual health educator and counselor, Dr. Jordan Shapiro – Temple University, Dr. Andrew Przybylski – Director Oxford Internet Institute, Dr. Danah Byod – Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and founder of Data & Society, Dr. Rachel Kowert- Research Director for Take This  and Dr. Sonia Livingstone – Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE -Dr. Tyler Black (Canadian) , Medical Director of the CAPE Unit at BC Children’s Hospital and BC Mental Health and Substance Use Services, Suicidologist, and specialist in Paediatric Emergency Psychiatry, and Dr Amy Orben – College Research Fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge. MediaSmarts Canada is a reputable resource that we turn to for information and here is an interview we did with their Director of Education Matthew Johnson:

For decades, abstinence-based programs have been the go-to strategy to address various youth and teen societal challenges, from substance abuse to smoking and sexual health. Campaigns like "Just Say No to Drugs," anti-smoking abstinence messaging, and sex education programs promoting abstinence-only approaches were designed with the best intentions - to protect youth from harm. However, the results of these efforts have shown that abstinence-based messaging often falls short of its goals. Today, as conversations around technology use and teens escalate, we are witnessing a resurgence of abstinence-based messaging and campaigns - this time in the form of "delay access to cellphones and technology" and "ban social media for youth” until a certain age. Drawing from history, it is worth asking whether this strategy will succeed or whether it is destined to follow the same path of ineffectiveness. The D.A.R.E. program, widely implemented in the 1980s and 1990s, emphasized "Just Say No" as the cornerstone of its anti-drug abstinence based messaging. However, multiple studies found that D.A.R.E. had little to no long-term impact on reducing drug use among teens. (1)(2)(3)(4) Why? It ignored the complexities of peer pressure, curiosity, and the socio-economic factors that contribute to substance use. Simplifying the issue to a binary choice, either you abstain or you fail, did not equip teens with the critical thinking skills they needed to navigate real-world situations surrounding drug use. Similarly, early anti-smoking efforts often relied on scare tactics and abstinence-based approaches. Campaigns showed graphic images of diseased lungs and warned youth to "never start smoking." Yet, smoking rates among teens continued to rise during these campaigns. (5) It wasn’t until harm reduction strategies and education on long-term health consequences were implemented that smoking rates began to decline. Lastly, during the 1980s and 1990s, abstinence-only based sexual health programs became a central focus. These programs discouraged discussions about safer sex and condom use, often emphasizing moral judgment over practical education. The result? Higher rates of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections in areas where abstinence-only education dominated. Comprehensive sex education harm reduction strategies, which acknowledged the realities of teen behaviour and provided harm-reduction tools, proved far more effective in reducing risks. (6)(7)(8) Today, we see the conversation around teens and technology echoing these past abstinence-based strategies. Messages like "delay access to cellphones" and "ban social media for youth" are gaining traction, driven by fears of screen addiction, mental health challenges, and exposure to harmful content. While “some” of the concerns are valid, the solution of abstinence, is unlikely to work for several reasons: Just as teens were naturally curious about drugs, smoking, and sex, they are equally curious about technology and social media. Completely banning or delaying access often backfires, leading to covert use or an inability to self-regulate when access is eventually granted. Abstinence from technology does not teach teens how to use it responsibly to create resilience. Instead, it delays their exposure to the very tools they will need to navigate adulthood. In today’s onlife world, this can put them at a significant disadvantage. The allure of fitting in with peers remains a powerful motivator for teens. When most of their friends have smartphones or are on social media, abstinence can isolate them socially, leading to resentment and even rebellion. Just as "Just Say No" oversimplified drug use, abstinence-based cellphone campaigns reduce complex issues like screen use and online safety to a binary solution. This ignores the nuances of individual circumstances and the potential benefits technology can offer, such as educational tools, creative outlets, and social connections. History has shown us that age appropriate education and harm reduction are far more effective than abstinence based approaches. When it comes to cellphones and social media, teens, parents, caregivers, and educators here are some ideas for consideration: Help teens understand the benefits and risks of technology - something called digital literacy. Equip them with the skills to critically evaluate content, recognize online manipulation, and set healthy boundaries. (9)(10)(11) Teens learn from observing adults. Demonstrating balanced technology use in your own life sets a powerful example. (12)(13) Rather than an outright ban, introduce technology gradually with age-appropriate boundaries. For example, allow access to educational apps before social media. (14) Create an environment where teens feel comfortable discussing their online experiences, challenges, and questions. It’s not about how much time they spend online but how they spend that time. Encourage productive, creative, and educational uses of technology. (15) The lessons of history clearly demonstrate the limitations of abstinence-based approaches in addressing complex societal challenges, especially when it comes to youth and teens. Whether it was the ineffectiveness of "Just Say No" campaigns in reducing drug use, the failure of early anti-smoking efforts, or the unintended consequences of abstinence-only sex education, these strategies consistently fell short because they ignored the complexities of human behaviour, curiosity, and peer influence. As we face the growing concerns surrounding teens and technology, it is imperative that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Banning or delaying access to cellphones and social media may seem like a straightforward solution, but it risks alienating teens, stifling their ability to develop real-world skills, and oversimplifying the multifaceted issues at play - known as a Nirvana Fallacy. (16) Instead, we must embrace harm reduction and education as guiding principles. By fostering digital literacy, modelling balanced technology use, introducing age-appropriate technology and boundaries, and creating open channels for communication, we can equip teens with the tools and knowledge they need to navigate the digital world responsibly and safely. The goal is not to shield teens from technology but to prepare them for it. By focusing on how they engage with technology rather than simply restricting access, we empower them to thrive in an increasingly connected world. The abstinence-based messaging of the past failed because it sought to deny teen curiosity and oversimplified complex issues. As we confront new challenges with teens and technology, we must resist the urge to repeat those mistakes. Instead, let’s embrace strategies that educate, empower, and prepare our youth to thrive in an increasingly digital world. By learning from history, we can ensure a better future for the next generation. Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References: 1/ https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-03346-017 2/ https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/152055NCJRS.pdf 3/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448384/ 4/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022427894031001001 5/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1116786/ 6/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17885460/ 7/ https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30297-5/fulltext 8/ https://www.actioncanadashr.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Action%20Canada_StateofSexEd_F%20-%20web%20version%20EN.pdf 9 / https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/a-transformational-approach-to-parenting-in-todays-onlife-world/ 10/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/embarking-on-the-onlife-journey-together-7-key-parenting-ingredients-to-strength-enhance-online-safety/ 11/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/parenting-and-technology-lead-as-a-lighthouse-parent-instead-of-a-detached-helicopter-or-snowplow-parent/ 12/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/are-parents-too-distracted-by-devices-how-our-technology-habits-impact-kids/ 13/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/why-kids-struggle-to-connect-with-tech-distracted-parents/ 14/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/the-analogy-of-riding-a-bike-when-it-comes-to-tech-integration-benchmarks-and-our-kiddos/ 15/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/why-screen-value-is-more-important-than-screen-time/ 16/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/the-nirvana-fallacy-examining-the-pitfalls-of-prohibiting-technology-use-by-youth-until-a-certain-age/

In recent months, we’ve heard from many families worried about their elderly parent’s online activities, particularly regarding connections with people they don’t know, and the risks to them of financial fraud. In fact, we have helped several families cope with some of the consequences of a senior who fell victim to an online crime. This concern is growing as seniors become one of the fastest-growing groups online. While the internet offers many benefits, there’s an undeniable need for vigilance when it comes to digital safety for our aging parents. The internet can significantly enhance the quality of life for seniors. It provides: Access to essential services: Ordering transportation, groceries, and meals. Health monitoring: Apps and devices can track wellness and alert caregivers to irregularities. Safety enhancements: Tools that promote security in the home and beyond. Up-to-date information: News, trends, and resources to stay informed. Entertainment: Access to movies, games, and hobbies. Peace of mind for caregivers: Alerts and updates about seniors’ well-being. Connectivity: Staying in touch with family, friends, and healthcare providers. These advantages underscore why we strive to keep seniors connected to the digital world for as long as possible. Unfortunately, the risks seniors face online are real, particularly in cases where 1/ They are lonely and want to connect with others and the internet gives them the community to do that. 2/ They purposely and stubbornly ignore your thoughts and recommendations specific to the online threats they can face, or 3/ They are experiencing cognitive decline, such as early-stage dementia or Alzheimer’s, which may be impairing  judgment or memory.  When seniors don’t grasp or purposely and stubbornly ignore the dangers of digital fraud, or forget safety guidelines, families are often left with tough decisions. While removing internet access entirely is sometimes necessary, it’s typically something we would recommend to be a last resort. There are steps families can take to address concerns while preserving their loved one’s digital independence for as long as possible. Invest In A Managed Router If your parent lives with you, or even in an independent living facility where such options are possible (we worked with one family who did this with an independent living facility), consider installing a managed router like the Gryphon Router. (1) This tool enables you to: Control internet access. Block inappropriate or high-risk websites. Monitor their online activity. prevent malware to be downloaded This setup can ensure they stay connected to family and friends while minimizing exposure to potentially harmful sites or scams. Families we have worked with report great success with this solution, especially in scenarios where the senior is open to some level of digital oversight. Use A Secure Sandboxed Messaging Platform Since staying connected with loved ones and friends is a top priority for many seniors, consider introducing them to a platform like Kinzoo. (2) Although this app was designed for youth, this app facilitate texting and video chatting in a secure, user-friendly environment tailored for safety and simplicity for seniors as well. What sets KINZOO apart is its focus on privacy and control, allowing family members to monitor interactions and ensure that only trusted contacts can communicate with your senior parent. By integrating a platform like this into their digital routine, seniors can maintain meaningful connections without the risks associated with open social media or unsecured messaging apps. This approach not only fosters their sense of independence but also provides peace of mind for families concerned about online safety. Platforms like KINZOO, although designed for youth, are an excellent solution for bridging the gap between connection and security, giving seniors the tools to stay in touch while minimizing exposure to potential risks. Secure Financial Safeguards Financial exploitation is one of the biggest risks for seniors online. If possible, obtain power of attorney to oversee their finances. This step allows you to: Monitor transactions. Prevent unauthorized transfers. Serve as a second layer of protection, akin to two-factor authentication. However, gaining power of attorney can be challenging if your parent is resistant. In such cases, open conversations emphasizing the goal of protection rather than control may help ease the transition. In some situations, especially as cognitive challenges worsen, the only viable option may be to restrict or remove access to the internet altogether. While this can feel drastic, it’s sometimes the best way to protect them from personal and financial harm. Navigating the digital world with senior parents can be a delicate balance between empowering their independence and ensuring their safety. The internet offers a wealth of benefits for seniors, enhancing their quality of life and keeping them connected to the people and resources they value most. However, the risks of online scams and financial exploitation require families to stay vigilant and proactive. By investing in tools like managed routers and securing financial safeguards, you can better protect your loved ones while delaying the need for more restrictive measures. Open communication, empathy, and collaboration are essential in maintaining trust and understanding. In cases where difficult decisions must be made, prioritizing their personal and financial well-being is paramount. With patience and thoughtful planning, you can help your senior parents navigate the digital age safely, ensuring they reap the benefits of connectivity while minimizing risks. Yes, helping senior parents stay safe online requires patience, communication, and proactive measures. By addressing risks early, you can strike a balance between preserving their independence and protecting their well-being. Ultimately, these decisions are never easy, but ensuring the safety of your loved ones is always worth the effort. Related Articles: Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No tech References” 1/ https://www.kinzoo.com/ 2/ https://gryphonconnect.com/

Will Canada Follow Along? I Hope Not. Recently, a ruling by the United States Federal Trade Commission gave internet data mining companies the legal right to collect our past, present, and future posts on social networks, like Facebook and Twitter, and then sell it to employers as a “background” checking service for potential job applicants. WOW! Considering some of the most personal and intimate information that some of us post in our social networks, would you want a potential employer to have access to this information. This US-based ruling has all kinds of implications attached such as: What about our legal right from discrimination based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, physical, or mental disability and many more. An employer who is prohibited from asking such questions on a job application or in an interview, may be able to have access to this information from these data mining companies? Given that young people live for the here and now and don’t really consider the future, what kind of long-term impact will personal postings in social networks have on their future job aspirations? Could colleges and universities now use this information to decide if you are the type of student that I want at my academic institution? Could anyone, other than an employer, have access to this same information if they pay a data mining company for such a service? Could a current employer covertly use this information in a promotional process? For years now I have stated in my Internet presentations that anything you post online is both PUBLIC and SEARCHABLE no matter what your privacy settings, so forewarned is forearmed!!! For those of you who still doubt that potential employers are data mining information about you online, here are a couple of charts from a 2010 Microsoft study that I am sure you will find very enlightening Digital Food For Thought Darren Laur AKA #thewhitehatter

In today’s onlife world, many parents and caregivers feel overwhelmed by the rapid advancements in technology and the ever-changing online world their children navigate daily. But here’s the good news: you don’t need to be a tech expert to be a great tech parent or caregiver. Instead, focus on balance, intention, and mindfulness when guiding your child’s technology use. Rather than banning technology or allowing unlimited access, onlife parenting is about fostering a balanced approach. This means being intentional about when, where, and how technology is used in your household. It involves making thoughtful decisions about screen use, setting boundaries that align with your family values, and ensuring that technology is integrated into daily life in a way that is purposeful and enriching. Encouraging mindfulness is another key aspect. Children should develop an awareness of their screen habits and understand how their digital choices impact their well-being. This means guiding them to recognize when technology is enhancing their experiences versus when it may be detracting from other important aspects of life. Helping them reflect on their usage patterns fosters a sense of responsibility and self-regulation. Maintaining balance ensures that technology serves a purpose, whether educational, social, or recreational, without overshadowing other critical elements of life. Family time, outdoor activities, and sleep should not be compromised by excessive screen use. Instead, parents and caregivers can help their children develop a holistic approach to technology, where it complements rather than dominates their daily routines. A common misconception is that good onlife parenting means constant monitoring and restriction. However, the goal should be to enable your child to use technology wisely. This includes helping them understand digital etiquette and safety, ensuring they know how to interact respectfully online, recognize potential risks, and protect their personal information. Teaching critical thinking skills is equally important, as it equips children to navigate online spaces responsibly, discern credible sources of information, and make informed choices. Technology also provides opportunities for creativity and problem-solving. Encouraging children to use digital tools for creative expression, such as coding, digital art, or content creation, fosters innovation and skill development. Rather than just being passive consumers of digital media, they can become active participants in shaping their online experiences in meaningful ways. The best thing you can do for your child is to be present when it comes to their digital media use. Engaging with them about what they’re doing online, the games they play, and the content they consume builds trust and open communication. This involvement allows you to better understand their onlife world while helping them navigate challenges. When parents and caregivers take the time to explore and discuss digital experiences together, it strengthens the parent-child relationship and ensures that children feel supported in their online interactions. Legacy media often amplifies fears about children and technology, creating collective anxiety and moral panic. While there are real concerns, such as privacy, problematic screen use, and online safety, it’s important to avoid fear-based decision-making. Instead, focus on evidence-based discussions and practical strategies for navigating the digital world. Parents and caregivers should seek out reliable information, avoid alarmist rhetoric, and approach digital parenting with a rational and informed mindset. Technology is neither inherently good nor bad, it’s all about how it’s used. The challenge for families is to find ways to maximize the benefits of digital media while minimizing risks. Encouraging educational and creative technology use ensures that children harness digital tools for learning and personal growth. Setting age and developmentally appropriate boundaries and guidelines helps establish healthy habits and prevents overuse or exposure to inappropriate content. Having ongoing conversations about digital well-being fosters an open dialogue where children feel comfortable discussing their online experiences and challenges. Rather than reacting with judgment when your child engages with technology in ways you may not understand, approach the situation with curiosity. Asking open-ended questions like, “What do you enjoy about this game or app?” or “How does this social media platform make you feel?” encourages meaningful discussions. This approach fosters trust and keeps the conversation open, allowing your child to feel safe discussing their online experiences with you. By shifting from a place of control to one of guidance, parents and caregivers can better support their children’s digital journeys. Remember, it’s okay to say, “I Don’t Know.” Technology is evolving so quickly that even the most tech-savvy parent or caregiver can’t know everything. Don’t be afraid to admit when you don’t have the answers. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn together. Saying, “I don’t know, but let’s research it together,” not only models problem-solving skills but also reinforces the idea that learning is a continuous process. This collaborative approach empowers children to take an active role in understanding the digital world while strengthening their ability to seek out reliable information. It’s natural for there to be disagreements between parents, caregivers, and children when it comes to technology use. However, friction is not always a bad thing. These moments provide opportunities for teaching critical thinking, self-regulation, and resilience. Learning to navigate digital boundaries helps children develop the skills they need to manage technology responsibly on their own. Through discussions and negotiations, they learn how to assess risks, make informed choices, and develop a sense of digital independence. Being a great onlife parent or caregiver isn’t about having all the answers, it’s about being engaged, open-minded, and intentional. By fostering a balanced approach, staying present, and replacing judgment with curiosity, you can help your child develop a healthy and informed relationship with technology. And remember, it’s okay to learn alongside your child because the onlife world is evolving for all of us. Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech

Caveat - this article is a follow-up article to the one we posted yesterday. “Why Parents and Caregivers Need to Be Cautious When Reading About Research Findings Specific To Technology and Teens” (1) As our discussions and articles on the emotional, psychological, physical, and social effects of technology and social media on youth reach a wider audience, we have noticed two recurring arguments that are directed at us. These arguments question the approach we take when evaluating research and policy decisions regarding youth and technology use. Below, we address these two arguments and provide counter-arguments rooted in evidence and reasoned analysis. Argument #1: "Show us the research that supports that technology and social media will not harm youth." At first glance, this challenge may seem reasonable, after all, if social media and technology were completely safe, there should be research confirming this. However, this line of reasoning presents a logical fallacy known as “shifting  the burden of proof” or "proving a negative”, a common strategy used in debate. A common phrased used in research applies to this argument, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because there are no studies showing harm to children who stay off social media does not mean that harm does not exist. It may simply mean that the research hasn't been conducted, or that studies haven't been designed in a way that would detect such harm. Most parents and caregivers don’t know that scientific research does not typically operate by proving that something is harmless; rather, it assesses risk based on available evidence. When someone challenges you to prove the positive outcomes of something, they are essentially placing the responsibility on you to demonstrate that something works or has benefits. This can sometimes be a reasonable request, but it can also be a rhetorical tactic to dismiss an argument without providing good evidence-based counter evidence. For example, if someone says, "Prove that social media has positive effects on teens," without acknowledging existing research or providing their own counterarguments, they are shifting the burden of proof onto you. This can be problematic if they are making an implicit claim (e.g., that social media is harmful) but refusing to provide “good” evidence-based research to support their position For instance, we do not demand research proving that walking in a park will not cause harm; instead, we evaluate whether credible studies indicate that parks are dangerous. Similarly, research on technology and social media should be examined in terms of actual, measured harm rather than the absence of harm. The burden of proof should be on demonstrating substantial risk, not on proving an impossible negative. In the case of social media and youth, studies have produced mixed findings. Some research suggests potential risks, particularly for vulnerable populations, while other studies highlight benefits such as social connectivity, educational  and employment opportunities, and creative expression. Rather than assuming harm, we should take a nuanced approach, that looks at each child, that considers both risks and benefits, addressing real concerns while avoiding fear-based conclusions. Every child is unique, and we believe our approach as parents and caregivers to their use of technology should reflect that uniqueness. Argument #2: "Even if the negative effects reported in a study have very little significance, shouldn’t we still act on it when it comes to our kids because harm, no matter what the degree, is something that we need to protect our kids from?" Again, this perspective is understandable given that parents and caregivers want to minimize all possible harm to their children. However, the key issue here is not whether we should act when we see harm in the research, but whether the data actually indicates that there is “real” harm. If a study’s findings are based on statistical noise, meaning the results are weak, unreliable, or over interpreted, then using that data to justify widespread changes can be misleading and even counterproductive. As an example, imagine a car mechanic who tests the brakes of a vehicle and finds a slight issue with one of the brake pads. If they were to immediately recommend replacing the entire braking system without fully assessing the problem, it could lead to unnecessary costs and disruption. Similarly, if a study finds a minor connection between screen use and mental health issues but doesn’t account for other influencing factors, acting on these findings without deeper analysis could result in overreactions or misguided policy. More importantly, overreacting to weak or misinterpreted data can divert attention from genuine risks that do require action. If we focus all our energy on regulating social media with weak evidence while ignoring well-documented issues like childhood poverty, family violence, inadequate mental health resources, or educational disparities, we may be attempting to target and solve the wrong problems. We strongly believe in addressing real risks to children’s well-being, but our actions should be guided by strong, replicable research rather than emotional reactions to weak or inconclusive studies. Good policy and parenting decisions require evidence that is not only statistically significant but also meaningful in real-world contexts. A balanced approach recognizes that technology and social media are neither inherently good nor bad. Instead of blanket restrictions or fear-driven narratives, we should advocate for media literacy, healthy digital habits, and evidence-based interventions where necessary. A well-informed and balanced approach to youth, technology, and social media requires careful consideration of both risks and benefits. Rather than reacting to weak or inconclusive research with broad restrictions, we should focus on strong, replicable evidence that truly reflects real-world risks. Emotional responses to alarming headlines may feel justified, but they can lead to misplaced priorities that overlook more pressing challenges facing youth. Instead, we should prioritize digital literacy, healthy technology habits, and nuanced discussions that recognize the individuality of each child. By doing so, we empower young people to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly, without succumbing to fear-based decision-making. By maintaining a critical eye on the validity of research and focusing on the broader context of youth well-being, we can ensure that our actions are truly in the best interest of our children. Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech not No Tech References: 1/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/why-parents-and-caregivers-need-to-be-cautious-when-reading-about-research-findings-specific-to-technology-and-teens/

Caveat - At The White Hatter, we are not youth psychologists or psychiatrists. However, we rely heavily on the solid, evidence-based research provided by these professionals to help inform our understanding and perspectives on the challenges young people face in today’s “onlife” world. With the recent media attention surrounding the Netflix series Adolescence , we've noticed many parents suggesting that the show be used in schools to educate teen boys about radicalization, incels, and the manosphere. This is an approach we do not support - something we've previously written about. Naturally, this leads to the next question we often hear from parents and educators: "So what should we be doing instead?" This article outlines our thoughts, shaped by the research and insights of respected experts in this field such as Dr Jessica Taylor, Dr Sophie King-Hill, Dr Rachel Kowert, Mike Nicholson, Catherine Knibbs, and Richard Pomfrett to name a few,  and builds on this article we recently wrote. In an age where fictional streaming shows like Adolescence attempt to highlight complex issues affecting today’s youth, there’s a rising concern among youth psychologists and psychiatrist that such portrayals may unintentionally do more harm than good, if such shows are taken outside their intended purpose - entertainment. The current conversation around boys, toxic masculinity, and online influences like the manosphere and incel culture that Adolescence portrays, is becoming increasingly muddled, and we believe it's time we take a step back and reframe the dialogue for those who follow us. Incel Culture vs. the Manosphere:  First, let’s clarify an important point that’s being overlooked in much of the online discourse: incel and the manosphere are not the same thing. Though the show Adolescence and some media platforms tend to conflate the two, these are distinct cultural phenomena. (1) Incel (involuntary celibate) is a movement primarily centred around men who feel they are unable to attract romantic or sexual partners and believe this is due to their genetics, societal standards, or female hypergamy. Incel communities are often defined by deep-rooted feelings of loneliness, sadness, self-hatred, and isolation. Research by Dr. Sophie King-Hill indicates that those who identify with incel ideologies frequently struggle with suicidal ideations and a profound lack of self-worth. (black pill) The manosphere, on the other hand, tends to promote hyper-masculine values: dominance, emotional suppression, and the belief that men must always be strong and in control and see women as manipulative or inferior. These communities are often led by so-called “toxic influencers”, such as Andrew Tate who leverage traditional gender norms to gain popularity, influence, and profit. (red pill) Conflating these two can lead to harmful generalizations that label all teen boys as potential threats, further alienating those who are simply trying to make sense of who they are in a very complicated onlife world. What we’re seeing in online discussions, and in shows like Adolescence, is a blanket demonization of teen boys. These portrayals suggest that teen boys are inherently violent, emotionless, or likely to embrace misogyny and hate. These stereotypes do not reflect the reality for most boys. In fact, it has been our experience that the vast majority of teen boys express compassion, empathy, and a desire to be good human beings. As Dr Dr. Sophie King-Hill stated,  one boy recently shared with her: “Adults keep telling me I’m the problem, but I’m never allowed to be part of the solution.” That sentiment captures why our current approach to educating on these topics is failing and must change. We must move away from the outdated notion that all boys experience the world in the same way. Boyhood is not monolithic. It's diverse, emotional, and complex. When adults make assumptions or use sweeping terms like “toxic masculinity” in education programs, it can send a message to boys that they are broken by default.  Imagine attending a class that begins with the phrase “anti-misogyny education.”  (2) Many teen boys immediately feel they’re being accused of something they haven’t done. That shuts down dialogue. Instead, we need to start with respect, curiosity, and a willingness to listen. The solution isn’t to tell boys what to think. It’s to teach them how to think. Help them build the critical thinking skills to question the content they see online, whether that’s coming from a toxic influencer or an angry incel forum. Invite them to engage in meaningful dialogue. Ask them what they think, and genuinely listen to the answers. Programs that succeed are those that involve youth, not lecture them. We must create spaces where boys feel safer to express confusion, vulnerability, and fear without judgment. Spaces where they can talk about issues like relationships, identity, loneliness, and pressure, with adults and mentors they respect. We also need to acknowledge that youth and teen violence is not exclusive to boys. Case studies like the tragic death of Rena Virk remind us that girls, too, can be capable of extreme aggression. (3)  Pointing fingers at one gender as “the problem” only reinforces division and ignores the broader societal dynamics at play. Misogyny and hate must be challenged and called out by parents, caregivers, educators and coaches when observed. But the way we do that matters. Labeling all teen boys as dangerous or toxic only fuels defensiveness and disengagement and feed into the narrative that the manosphere and incels use to their advantage when it comes to indoctrination. Instead, let’s: Teach critical thinking rather than impose morality. Build relationships with boys based on trust, not fear. Create safer, shame-free spaces for boys to talk and question. Model positive human interactions instead of attacking masculinity itself. Involve teen boys in shaping the programs and conversations meant to help them. We believe that the research shows us that we must stop vilifying boys, and start equipping them. The future isn’t about controlling teen boys, it’s about trusting them to grow into the thoughtful, empathetic, and self-aware men we know they can become. If we want to tackle the real issues behind the incel culture, the manosphere, online radicalization, and toxic online spaces, the answer isn’t fear. It’s all about connection! Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References: 1/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/parent-resource-guide-understanding-and-addressing-youth-online-radicalization/ 2/ https://tribune.com.pk/story/2536330/netflix-drama-adolescence-prompts-anti-misogyny-curriculum-shift-in-uk-schools 3/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Reena_Virk

Caveat - We wrote this article after reading a new April 2025 research study  conducted by the Movember Institute of Men’s Health titled, “Young Men’s Health In A Digital World” that was brought to our attention by our friend in the UK, Richard Pomfrett. What makes this research different, they interviewed over 3000 young men between the ages of 16-25 years of age to get their perspective. (1) As parents, caregivers, and teachers, it's important to understand a growing trend, online masculinity influencers are no longer on the fringes, they’re becoming a major force in shaping how young men think about themselves and their place in the world. Today’s youth and teen boys are growing up in a world of constant change, and adolescence has always been a challenging time. But now, many young men are facing higher levels of anxiety, loneliness, and risky behaviour, while also being bombarded by online voices promising easy answers and simple rules for how to be “a real man.” These influencers offer certainty in an uncertain world. They share step-by-step guides to success, confidence, and relationships, and that can feel empowering to a young person looking for direction. The new research from the Movember Institute of Men’s Health, (2) was based on insights from more than 3,000 young men, shows a complex picture. Many young men in this report say these influencers make them feel inspired, motivated, and more hopeful about their future. However, at the same time, this research shows that these same young men report high levels of stress, emotional struggle, and risky health behaviours. So what can we do as parents, caregivers and educators? We don’t need to shut down the conversation. However, we do need to reshape it, and here are some of our thoughts on how to do this based on what we read in this research: One of the most powerful things we can do for the young men in our lives is to expand what it actually means to "be a man." Too often, online influencers promote narrow, outdated, or even harmful stereotypes of masculinity, ones that focus on dominance, emotional suppression, and external success. But masculinity doesn’t have to fit into one box. We need to help young men see that there are many healthy, authentic ways to be masculine, ways that include vulnerability, compassion, cooperation, and emotional intelligence. By encouraging more diverse and inclusive representations of masculinity in the media they consume, and modelling those values in our own homes, we can help them form an identity that’s grounded in confidence and well-being, not fear or pressure to conform. Young people today are very well connected online, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically savvy about what they’re seeing online. That’s why media literacy and emotional education are more important than ever. We need to give youth and teen boys the tools to ask critical questions about the content they consume such as; Who is creating this message? What’s the motive behind it? Is it promoting a healthy worldview, or exploiting insecurity? At the same time, helping teen boys recognize and manage their emotions is key to navigating the often-intense feelings that come with adolescence. When we combine media literacy with critical thinking and emotional intelligence, we empower boys to be active, informed participants in today’s onlife world, not just passive consumers. Too often, decisions about youth and teen mental health, online safety, and education are made without hearing from the young men themselves. If we want to support their well-being, we need to include them in conversations that affect their lives, this is why we loved reading this report, because that it what they did. That means involving youth in shaping policies, encouraging social media platforms to be more transparent and responsive to their needs, and holding tech companies accountable for how algorithms influence what young people see. When young men feel that their perspectives matter and their concerns are taken seriously, they are more likely to engage, speak up, and take ownership of their own well-being. We can’t support young men if we don’t meet them in the spaces they already inhabit. Today, that means showing up in digital environments that they frequent such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and gaming platforms, with content that’s designed to support their mental health and personal growth. This isn’t about preaching or fear-based messaging. It’s about creating relatable, strength-based resources that speak their language, highlight positive role models, and offer real strategies for coping, connecting, and thriving. When we provide credible, youth-friendly voices in the same spaces where masculinity influencers are gaining traction, we offer an alternative that’s both empowering and constructive. The rise of masculinity influencers is not just a trend, it’s a reflection of a deeper need that many youth and teens are experiencing today which is the need for guidance, identity, and a sense of belonging in a rapidly changing world. As parents, caregivers, and educators, we can’t afford to ignore the powerful role these online figures play in shaping how boys see themselves and what they believe it means to be a man. We also shouldn’t respond with fear or attempts to shut the conversation down. Instead, we need to step into this space with understanding, compassion, and action. This means broadening the definition of masculinity to include empathy, emotional honesty, and personal integrity. It means giving boys the tools to think critically about what they see online, helping them build resilience and emotional intelligence. It means listening to them, truly listening, and making sure their voices are represented in the systems and policies that affect them.  It means showing up in the digital spaces they already inhabit, offering supportive, relatable, and healthy alternatives that speak to their realities. As parents, caregivers, and educators , our job isn’t to shield young men from the world, it’s to help them navigate it with clarity, confidence, and care. When we combine love, structure, and education, we can help ensure they aren’t just surviving adolescence, but thriving through it. Let’s work together to make sure the messages our boys are receiving, both online and offline, are ones that build them up, not break them down. When we support their mental health, we support their future. And that benefits everyone. This isn’t just about countering the negative, it’s about offering young men something better. Something real. And it starts with us. Digital Food For Thought Th White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References: 1/ https://cdn.sanity.io/files/d6x1mtv1/mo-com-production/2468e856e0806090ead9a3e49b53972496eaa971.pdf 2/ https://us.movember.com/movember-institute

Chapter 8:The Dopamine Connection – Facts vs Fear We do believe that online problematic behaviour is emotionally, psychologically, physically, and socially multifactorial in its cause and effects.  However, we do take issue with the narrative that some promote about the “addicitve” effects of dopamine when it comes to online gaming and social media, which is just not supported in current evidence-based peer-reviewed research. As Dr Vijay Namboodiri, professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco, stated in this 2023 interview that such narratives "... are not necessarily based on actual science of what we know about dopamine" bit.ly/3JQrHbd As researcher Catherine Knibbs stated in her book “Children, Technology and Healthy Development”: “We humans are more complicated than these dopamine hits, reward and motivation circuits, and behaviours that may seem to be based in the addiction narrative” For years now, we have been hearing and reading about how gaming, smartphones, or social media “addiction” is the result of the “dopamine loop” which is similar, some say identical, to the dopamine loop in substance addiction. As researchers Tommy Blanchard and Dean Burnett state, "The thesis is: pleasure = Bad, Dopamine = Pleasure, ipso facto, Dopamine = Bad." therefore for cellphones and screen that bring pleasure increases dopamine and ipso facto bad. https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/what-did-dopamine-do-to-deserve-this Just recently we watched the Netflix show, “ The Social Dilemma”,  which some call a polemic rather than a documentary,  where the association of substance addiction, dopamine, online gaming, and cellphones was a common narrative.  https://bit.ly/353TyzV   Our questions – Are these comments, opinions, and suppositions based upon good research, or are they just being used as a scare tactic given its comparison and association with substance abuse? Additionally, is the issue surrounding problematic internet usage more nuanced than just the dopamine loop? The widespread notion by some digitial literacy and internet safety advocates that social media triggers "dopamine hits" leading to addiction lacks research support. Mark D. Griffiths, Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction at the International Gaming Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, notes, "the idea that dopamine 'hijacks the brain' and leads to 'compulsive loops' are analogies used in the media rather than terms used by scientists." We are not scientists, brain doctors, cognitive or developmental psychologists, or neuro-chemists but as a retired police officer of 30 years, Darren is a trained investigator. When he was looking to obtain a conviction in court, he needed to provide evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged was guilty of that crime. This took evidence. Sometimes to solve a crime, especially a historical crime, investigators start with a hypothesis that seems plausible, but as the investigator follows the evidence, it’s not uncommon that the initial hypothesis becomes implausible. Investigators are always careful not to allow just enough evidence to make a hypothesis plausible, thus why, much like in academia, an independent third-party review takes place so that the evidence collected has not been over interpreted or ignored. This is especially true when it comes to forensic evidence. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that plays a crucial role in the brain and body. It belongs to the group of chemicals called catecholamines and phenethylamines. It is involved in memory, reward pathways, and motor coordination, particularly in relation to Parkinson's disease. Dopamine is released by neurons and sends signals to other nerve cells in the central nervous system. Presently, research has found that the human brain comprises four primary dopamine pathways, which are connections linking different regions of the brain and serving as channels for neurotransmitters, chemical messengers. Each pathway is associated with distinct cognitive and motor functions - the mesocortical, mesolimbic, and nigrostriatal pathways. The fourth pathway, the tuberoinfundibular pathway, regulates the secretion of prolactin, a hormone necessary for milk production. When it comes to how dopamine affects humans, "it has become traditional to label dopamine neurons as ‘reward’ neurons, this is an overgeneralization, and it is important to distinguish between aspects of motivation that are differentially affected by dopaminergic manipulations”  https://bit.ly/2Tcx11e . Yes, fast spikes in dopamine can be triggered anytime we encounter something we like or find pleasurable; eating a chocolate bar, working out, kissing your partner, and yes playing a video game or engaging in social interaction via social media  https://bit.ly/3pGv8pU . It shouldn’t surprise us that dopamine is released when we engage in online gaming or social media on our devices. We think it is also important to know that dopamine is not an on/off process and is steadily released in smaller levels throughout the day. In fact, low levels of dopamine are one of the contributing factors of Parkinson’s disease  https://bit.ly/3wdapfy . So, dopamine can be released quickly when we encounter something we like, especially when unexpected, or slowly throughout the day for brain and body health. Not only is dopamine an important neurotransmitter for learning and movement control, but it also plays a role in memory, attention, mood, cognition, and even sleep. It is also important to understand that dopamine is not what makes you feel good. As Clinical Psychologist Dr. David Ley stated, “When a person is about to experience pleasure, dopamine is released in the brain, and in the parts of the brain that experience and process pleasure. Dopamine’s role here is NOT that it makes you feel good. It doesn’t—the pleasure and hedonic or euphoria feeling come from opioids in the brain, neurochemicals that increase pleasure and deaden the pain. Dopamine’s role in pleasure and reward is that it helps your brain to recognize “incentive salience.” This means that it’s like a little red flag to your brain, saying “hey, pay attention, this is about to feel good, and you want to remember this, so you can do it again.” A critical issue here is that a lack of dopamine doesn’t actually make the experience feel less good. In studies with rats, where dopamine was suppressed, rats showed “normal hedonic reaction patterns,” and still showed normal pleasure responses even though dopamine was suppressed.” As author Mark Humphries stated in his 2017 article "The Crimes Against Dopamine" stated: "It is not reward. Dopamine neurons do not fire when you get something good. They fire when you get something unexpected. And they sulk when you don't get something you expected. Rewards make you happy. Dopamine does not" Based on the research surrounding dopamine that we were able to locate, or that was sent to us, it’s not that dopamine is the problem, it’s the amount released and its frequency that can be the problem. This is what those who promote the dopamine loop as their lynchpin argument to draw a comparison to substance addiction (drugs and alcohol) fail to understand or even report. It is important to note that the dopamine hypothesis to drug addiction was first published in 1987 in a paper called "A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction" https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-14197-001 which was used as the keystone for a 1997 Time magazine article titled "Addicted: Why Do People Get Hooked" where they used the earlier mentioned 1987 research as it's main thesis as to why dopamine was to blame for all kinds of addictions. We do think it’s important to understand that there are two types of recognized addictions: Substance addictions, such as drugs and alcohol, and Behaviour addictions, such as gambling It should be noted that the only behavioural addiction to be recognized by the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5) is gambling disorder  https://bit.ly/3gm4dLD  . There is still a significant amount of debate on whether other less recognized forms of impulsive behaviours, such as compulsive buying, compulsive sex, or problematic online gaming can be conceptualized as addictions in the DSM5. Having said this, in 2019 the World Health Organization recognized gaming disorder in the new edition of its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)  https://bit.ly/3zeWwPU . So, for those who continue to promote the word addiction to describe problematic online behaviour, they do so in error (sometimes purposely in our opinion) not based upon the current evidence-based research, the DSM5, or even the ICD-11 that uses the word “disorder” purposely. Distinguishing between problematic online behaviour and the word addiction is important. In 30 years of policing, Darren witnessed first-hand what true substance addiction looked like; we can assure you that it is nowhere near the same as those contraindications observed in online problematic behaviour. However, we want to emphasize that both are concerning for sure. Those who continue to push the narrative of online gaming addiction, social media addiction, or phone addiction, based upon opinion or by skewing the good evidence-based research to meet their narrative, are downplaying the emotional, psychological, physical and social sufferings of those with true substance addiction. As Neuroscientist Dean Burnett stated in this article https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/what-did-dopamine-do-to-deserve-this ,   “Addiction is an important clinical term with a troubled and weighty history. People enduring genuine addiction struggle to be taken seriously or viewed sympathetically at the best of times, so to apply their very serious condition to much more benign actions like scrolling TikTok makes this worse.”  Now let’s get back to dopamine! The research clearly shows that no matter what the substance addiction or problematic behaviour, dopamine will be released, but the amount of dopamine released is important to understand.  Specific to online gaming (behaviour based), we could only find one peer-reviewed research study specific to video games  https://go.nature.com/2SmmhgI . In this study, the researchers found that the levels of dopamine released in the brain raised by 100%.  Although this number appears to be concerning, activities such as meditation increase dopamine by 65% the same can be said about having sex and other pleasurable activities  https://bit.ly/3cuzFWZ   https://to.pbs.org/3pKaLYL Credit: Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse Now here’s what’s interesting – meditation, sex, gambling or even online gaming are behaviours, when you look at substance addiction such as alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine, there is a clear pathology that can trigger dopamine level spikes by over 1000%. Once again, the intensity differences between problematic gaming behaviour and substance addiction, based on the research, are clear when it comes to the levels of dopamine released.  Those who intimate or even say that online problematic behaviour is the same as substance addiction because of the dopamine loop are just being disingenuous. What would be fair to say, research is showing us that although substance addiction and problematic online behaviour may use the same dopamine pathway, they are not similar in intensity, cause, and effect. As Dr. Markey and Dr. Ferguson stated in their book  Moral Combat , there are billions of people young and old playing video games around the world, if online gaming was as addictive as drugs, then why don’t we have a massive world epidemic specific to this issue?  https://bit.ly/3v8Yhv1 As Dr. Daniel Kardefelt-Winther stated in a 2021 article “Do internet addiction and gaming disorders exist?”  https://bit.ly/3c1bvmo “In a very simplified version, some people say when you use digital technology, dopamine is released in the brain because of particular features of that technology. And that provides us with a nice feeling, and people argue that we become dependent on that dopamine release and the nice feeling it provides us, which then causes addictive behaviour because we want more of it. This perspective misses the fact that dopamine is released when we do a lot of things. For example, it’s involved in learning processes. You get dopamine released from many things that are interesting and rewarding. So why do we think this is a big deal when it comes to technology? We don’t talk about people being addicted to learning, even though dopamine is released here as well. The argument about dopamine being a causal driver for substance addiction has also been questioned by many researchers who have found that substance intake that is not associated with significant amounts of dopamine release can also be addictive. My point is not to say that dopamine doesn’t matter in these processes, but that the proposed causal impact of it continues to be exaggerated.” Although activities like gambling, watching pornography, internet use, and playing video games don’t stimulate as much dopamine release as drugs do, they can lead to patterns of behavior similar to those seen in substance use disorder — namely, continuing the activity despite severe negative consequences. As Dr Jacqueline Nesi stated: " We know from decades of research on “variable reward schedules” that when rewards are unpredictable, we will do a behavior over and over to get the reward (think slot machines)" Some who promote the dopamine loop addiction narrative will point to a 2015 study titled  Relationship Between Peripheral Blood Dopamine Level and Internet Addiction Disorder in Adolescents: A Pilot Study  to support their position  https://bit.ly/3w8gIRC . The conclusion of this study is: “In conclusion, these results of the present study provided evidence in favour of the hypothesis that dopamine played an important role in the development and maintenance of Internet addiction. This study preliminary affirmed the effect of dopamine in IAD, though the details about dopamine’s action are still unclear. Moreover, the present study prompted that dopamine in peripheral blood plasma might be an easily accessible candidate as biological markers for future research into the mechanisms of Internet addiction.” A couple of points that these same groups fail to identify in this study: This study attempted to measure Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) to do this they used something called the Internet Addiction Test (IAT). The means and process used to measure Internet Addiction Disorder has come under academic scrutiny. The effects identified in this study are extremely small. The group they identified as addicted had levels only 58% higher than the control. Remember the study mentioned earlier that found a 65% increase in dopamine when engaging in meditation. The authors actually state, “…our results in this study is opposite of the conclusion” In other words the study found that the test group did not appear to have developed any level of tolerance to dopamine. As Matthew Johnson (MediaSmarts) shared with me, “this challenges the idea of using addiction as a frame to analyze the behaviour.” Good point! Another important and easily understood perspective that Mathew Johnson shared with us, about this specific study, “It’s not surprising that there would be a correlation between dopamine levels and a high score on the IAT because what the IAT questions measures is using the internet for pleasure or avoiding displeasure. For example, question 2 is ‘Do you feel the need to use the internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction (though note the lack of tolerance identified in the study), ‘do you feel restless, moody, (etc.) when attempting to cut down or stop internet use’) and ‘Do you use the Internet as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric mood.’ In other words, people who use the internet to make themselves happier produce more dopamine when they use the internet and are likely to want to keep using the internet to avoid a dopamine crash – exactly as one would expect with any pleasurable activity that becomes a habit. Again, though, the dopamine is really the effect and not the cause.” As Dr Steven Quartz who specializes in Computational Neuroscience and dopamine  stated in a 2024 message on the platform X "The idea of easy dopamine is a relic of the outdated pleasure theory of dopamine. It gets things backwards- dopamine encodes the cost of effort. And it’s particularly unhelpful for understanding problematic social media use, which requires current theories of compulsive behavior as aberrant learning in complex information and reward landscapes." So, what does all this mean to us parents? Yes, both behaviour (meditation, working out, or playing a video game) and substances (drugs and alcohol) appear to follow the same brain pathways when it comes to the release of dopamine. As a social media researcher and colleague of ours stated, “Social media isn’t problematic because it produces dopamine any more than Doritos are bad because they produce dopamine – Doritos are bad because they are full of fat and very little else and are carefully engineered to get you to buy more Doritos”  Research to date shows that online gaming and cellphones are not inherently addictive, what the research is showing is that the hyper-social environments they provide can lead to problematic behaviour if it’s not mediated, especially at younger ages. There is very little peer-reviewed research that provides evidence that online gaming or the use of social media (behaviour) via cellphone or computer will cause the same intensity of dopamine as does drugs or alcohol (substance) addiction. In fact, there is some good research that shows that the dopamine effect from computer use  is totally different than that experienced in substance abuse  https://bit.ly/3wAZA80  Drugs work directly on the dopamine system, while behaviours, by definition, work indirectly A person or organization that uses the dopamine loop as their reason why online gaming, smartphones, or the use of social media can be as addictive as substances (drugs, alcohol) is doing so as a red herring and is promoting a juvenoic narrative that is not based upon any good academic or current peer-reviewed research. Rather than using the term addiction, which is not supported in the academic literature, parents should use the term problematic behaviour or problematic habituation which is recognized by academic researchers. Semantics are important! We need to start talking about the person and work towards understanding the behavioural and motivational factors surrounding problematic behaviour. Let’s stop externalizing problematic behaviour by focusing on dopamine addiction as the cause. Brain research is also showing us that when it comes to problematic gaming, regions in the brain that involve attachment-seeking behaviour, which also involves reward and motivational circuits, do overlap the dopamine paths. So which is it – addiction because of dopamine, motivation, or reward? Research has shown that the average person who is not an academic, scientist, or medical doctor can be convinced that something is medically true via explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive scientific information  https://bit.ly/3cxPoVk  . Just because something is repeated many times doesn’t necessarily make it true, especially by those lay people with no medical or scientific background, who misrepresent the research to support their narrative. Anything taken in excess can become problematic. Ice cream is delicious and makes people feel good, but too much can also make you sick. The same can be said about online gaming and social media.  It’s all about balance, or what Jocelyn Brewer calls a “blended” onlife approach to everything in our lives As Dr. Christopher Ferguson (PhD) stated in a recent article he published in Psychology Today, “Moral panics over media have existed since the time of the ancient Athenians (it was Greek plays back then). For some reason, some natural human biases make it difficult for us to learn from the history of past moral panics (such as comic books in the 1950s, or Dungeons and Dragons in the 1980s) and present a balanced and nuanced view of current data. Instead, more often, parents have to sift through scaremongering claims that misrepresent the science”  https://bit.ly/3zhpe2Q . So why is it that some in the digital literacy and internet safety sphere like to blame what they call "internet addiction" on dopamine? As writer Mark Humphries stated: " What is the root of these crimes against dopamine? A prime suspect is that, in trying to explain what it does, writers have chosen to leave out the wrong words. The main research papers on dopamine call its fast, large spike (and its fast, sulking pause) the “reward prediction error system”. A bit of a mouthful; and hard to remember. So textbooks and popular science articles shorten this to the easier “reward system”. Even the esteemed journal Nature, when reporting on the Brain Prize, called dopamine the “reward system”. But it is not. “Reward” is precisely the word they should have left out. We can replace the word “reward” with the word “outcome”, and it makes not one jot of difference to the theory. Yet by calling it the “reward system”, the mental leaps to happiness, pleasure, emotion and all the other crimes are easy ones to make. No, it is the other words – “prediction” and “error” – that are the key. Dopamine is a prediction error system." Where will future research take us, we don’t know, but we look forward to more evidence-based research when it comes to the onlife world. If we had one wish, it would be that the academic and scientific community make their research more understandable to those of us who look to them for guidance. Not to do so, as Dr. Ferguson stated, only causes parents to, “sift through scaremongering claims that misrepresent the science” Now some are trying to ban all technology out of the classroom because of the spector of dopamine, which just isn't supported in the reach as can be read in this article we wrote https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/schools-ed-tech-dopamine-and-learning-challenging-a-current-fear-based-narrative/ Here’s a great video from our Friend Dr Rachel Kowert https://youtu.be/4BCryhR00Do

So, how does this relate to Artificial Intelligence (AI), youth, and teens? However, AI is shifting this focus. This can make AI companions feel “safer” than human relationships. AI companionship apps are evolving fast. AI doesn’t just analyze what youth and teens say.

It also begs the question, “how is banning all tech in a classroom going to aid in overcoming this challenge This is becoming even more important given the lightning speed of AI development, a reality we can no