At The White Hatter, we’ve spent over twenty years immersed in what we refer to as the onlife world, a world where the digital and physical experiences of young people are no longer separate, but seamlessly intertwined. Today’s youth don’t log on and off the internet, they live in a space where social media, texts, DMs, livestreams, gaming platforms, classrooms, and home life are all part of the same continuous experience. From emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and algorithm-driven platforms, to the evolving ways teens socialize, learn, express, and even struggle online, we track how digital spaces are shaping their lives, in real time. But we’re not just passive observers. We’re active participants in the conversation, drawing from frontline experience with hundreds of thousands of students, educators, and parents across North America. Our mission is to go beyond headlines and hype. We analyze the trends, decode the risks, and deliver insights that help families, schools, and communities make informed choices. We’re here to cut through the noise, push back on fear-based narratives, and replace reaction with reason, so that youth can thrive in their connected lives, and the adults in their world can guide them with confidence and clarity. One of our key strengths is recognizing patterns, especially in how misinformation, moral panic, and fear-based narratives about youth and tech evolve. This ability isn’t accidental. It comes from direct experience with hundreds of thousands of students, from conversations with families and educators across North America, and from grounding everything we teach in credible, peer-reviewed evidence based research. It’s a combination of street-level insight and academic integrity that shapes everything we do. If you’ve been part of our community for a while, you’ve likely begun to spot those patterns too. You’re the parent who pauses before sharing the alarming headline. You’ve learned that not all screen time is equal, that social media isn’t the enemy, and that oversimplified narratives often miss the bigger picture, like parenting, policy, or the lack of meaningful education around these tools. You’ve probably also noticed that public conversation around youth and tech tends to swing wildly, from blind optimism to outright panic. Unfortunately, many of these swings are driven more by emotion than by evidence, and that’s where things can get tricky. One of the hardest lessons we’ve learned in our work? Just because you’ve reached a balanced conclusion doesn’t mean others are ready to hear it. When you speak with clarity and confidence but others are still caught in fear, uncertainty, or confusion, your insight might not land the way you hope. Not because it isn’t valid, but because their emotional readiness isn’t aligned with your informational readiness. That gap can unintentionally create tension with some of our followers, even when we are trying to help. This becomes especially important when we’re speaking up on behalf of youth and teens, participating in school policy discussions, or engaging with other parents and caregivers about digital literacy, online safety, or responsible tech use. In these moments, it’s not just what we say that matters, it’s how we say it which some take offence to. When our understanding is ahead of the curve, shaped by evidence based research, firsthand experience, and critical thinking, it can be easy to forget that others may still be processing information through the lens of fear, confusion, or outdated narratives. If our message is delivered without sensitivity to that emotional and cognitive gap, it risks being dismissed, not because it lacks truth or value, but because it doesn’t align with where others are in their own experience and learning journey. Yes, this is something we need to be more mindful of. Meeting people where they are, emotionally and intellectually, requires intentionality. It means slowing down, reading the room, and knowing when to educate gently rather than advocate forcefully. And let’s be honest, that’s not always easy for us given the large amount of “fear-based” messaging that has taken hold. It takes patience, empathy, and sometimes a deep breath before we speak. But when we do it right, it creates a space where minds can open, trust can build, and meaningful conversations can take root.   Take, for example, a recent claim made by someone we would categorize as a fear-based educator who stated, “Sexting is the new first base with youth and teens.” While such a statement may grab attention and spark concern, it’s not grounded in credible research. In fact, the best peer-reviewed studies consistently show that only about 9–14% of teens engage in sexting, and when they do, it’s typically within the context of a consensual, established relationship, not as a casual or widespread norm. (1) When we present statements like “sexting is the new first base” to teen audiences, they often respond with disbelief, eye rolls, or laughter, not because they take the topic lightly, but because they know it doesn’t reflect the reality of their lived experience. They understand nuance better than many adults give them credit for. So why would someone make such an exaggerated claim? Often, it’s because they’re selling something, perhaps a monitoring tool or an app marketed to help parents detect when intimate images are sent or received as was the case of this fear-based educator. While we fully support parents staying engaged and aware of their child’s digital life, it’s vital that guidance and tools be informed by facts, not fear-mongering. At The White Hatter, we don’t deny that risks exist, we address them head-on. But we do so by elevating what the evidence actually shows, rather than distorting reality to stoke panic or promote a product. When we misrepresent the behaviour of youth or teens, we don’t protect them, we alienate them, and we miss the opportunity for honest, productive dialogue. We often ask ourselves here at the White Hatter, “Why isn’t anyone else seeing this yet?”Often we need to remind ourselves that we are not overreacting, we are  just early,  and that’s exactly where change starts. The world doesn’t need more panic. It needs more people like you , parents and caregivers who are critical thinkers, thoughtful sharers, and calm voices in a noisy onlife world. When your insight is paired with patience and empathy, you don’t just inform. You influence. At The White Hatter, we believe that parenting in the onlife world isn’t about having all the answers, it’s about being willing to ask better questions. It’s about staying grounded in good evidence-based research, curious about new technologies, and connected to the real experiences of the young people we’re trying to guide. We’ve learned that the path to digital wisdom and enlightenment isn’t paved with panic, but with pattern recognition, critical thinking, and meaningful conversation. It’s not just about spotting risks, it’s about understanding context, respecting the intelligence of youth, and staying humble enough to listen even when their experiences challenge our assumptions as adults. We know this work isn’t easy. It requires patience in a world that demands urgency. It asks you to resist fear when fear is often the loudest voice in the room. And it means standing firm in what you know to be true, even when that truth isn’t yet popular. But the impact is worth it. When you speak up with reason instead of reaction, you model the very digital literacy we want young people to develop. When you challenge fear-based narratives with facts, you make room for empathy, trust, and more honest conversations. And when you meet others, such as parents, educators, even your own kids, where they are, rather than where you want them to be, you build bridges that allow real change to take root. You’re not just a consumer of this conversation, you’re a contributor. And your voice matters as a parent or caregiver. Because in a time when so many are shouting from the rooftops, the calm, informed, and compassionate voices are the ones that will actually be heard. They’re the ones that create clarity through the noise, bring direction to the confusion, and, most importantly, help raise a generation that isn’t afraid of the onlife world, but is prepared to thrive in it. So if you're the parent or caregiver quietly asking the tough questions while others fall into the latest tech panic, know this: “You are not too much. You’re simply ahead of the curve, and that’s not something to hide from, it’s something to own. Because change doesn’t start in the comfort of the crowd,  it starts with those willing to think differently, speak up early, and lead with clarity before consensus exists. That can feel lonely at times, but it’s also a place of incredible power, influence, and impact. Being ahead doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you a catalyst. And that’s exactly what the world needs more of when it comes to parenting our youth and teens in today’s onlife world” Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Fact Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References: 1/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/intimate-images-nudes-sexting-deepfakes-and-sugaring/

Sensational headlines often aim to generate clicks rather than present an accurate picture of events.

Recently, we read the following statement that was published online from an Internet safety presenter, “ Research shows that excessive social media use can significantly impact children's brain development”  Interesting statement when the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, the largest long-term research project on brain development in the US, following over a thousand children for four years says otherwise. (1) The media,  special interest groups, some policymakers, and even some digital literacy and internet safety presenters have sometimes exaggerated the findings of research in this area of brain study, implying that technology use is rewiring children's brains in alarming ways. However, the ABCD study itself does not support such drastic claims. The research is ongoing, and a more balanced perspective is needed when interpreting its results. The conversation about technology and youth often carries an ominous tone, with concerns that these devices are fundamentally altering the brains of young people. Some argue that cellphones are reshaping attention spans, emotional regulation, and even cognitive development. While there is truth to the idea that the human brain is changing in response to everything we do throughout life, this phenomenon is far from unique. In fact, the brain is constantly evolving and adapting based on experiences, a characteristic known as neuroplasticity - there is a great book that explains this very process called, “The Brain That Changes Itself” (2) Neuroplasticity is the brain’s ability to change and reorganize itself throughout life in response to experiences. This concept is well-established in neuroscience and can be seen in various stages of human development. For instance, did you know that a mother’s brain undergoes significant changes during pregnancy, with increased activity in regions associated with empathy, emotional regulation, and social cognition. These changes help new mothers bond with their infants and respond to their needs more effectively. (3) Similarly, the brains of bilingual individuals physically change to accommodate multiple languages, developing denser grey matter in areas associated with language processing and executive function (4) , or learning how to juggle can change the brain. (5) Even musicians show structural brain changes, particularly in regions related to auditory processing and motor control. (6) Arguing that “research shows excessive social media use can significantly impact children's brain development” as a reason to restrict youth and teens from using  technology is like saying we should restrict pregnancy, learning a new language, juggling, or learning how to playing a musical instrument because they also significantly impact brain development. However, it is important to acknowledge for those under the age of six, there is research to support that the “overuse” of technology can hinder developing essential self-regulatory skills, leading to more anger, frustration, and poorer effortful control. (7) Given the brain's adaptability, it’s no surprise that the widespread use of technology maybe influencing neural development. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean harm, it simply means adaptation and this is what the ABCD study is looking at specific to what this adaptation means. Technology, like any significant societal shift, are part of an ongoing evolution in how humans interact with the world. The brain has always adapted to new stimuli, whether it be reading, urbanization, or technological advancements. Rather than focusing solely on fear-based narratives, a more balanced approach recognizes both the challenges and opportunities that come with change. As parents and caregivers, understanding neuroplasticity can provide reassurance that change isn’t inherently negative. Instead of viewing technology as an unnatural disruptor of youth brain development, it may be more productive to focus on how we guide and support young people in using technology wisely. Just as we support new mothers, bilingual learners, and musicians in developing their unique skills, we can help our children navigate and benefit from the onlife world in a healthy, informed way. The fear-mongering around social media "rewiring" children's brains oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores the reality of neuroplasticity, our brains are constantly adapting to new experiences, not just technology. The ABCD study, the largest of its kind, does not support alarmist claims that social media is inherently harmful to brain development. Instead of focusing on fear, we should emphasize guidance, education, and balance in how young people engage with technology. Just as we encourage learning new skills, languages, or even musical instruments, each of which reshapes the brain, we should approach digital literacy with the same mindset: as an opportunity to equip youth with the tools to navigate the onlife world in a healthy, informed way. Related article: 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/does-technology-social-media-mental-health-issues-for-all-youth-we-need-to-reframe-the-question/ 2/ https://www.amazon.ca/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/0143113100 3/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01741-0 4/ https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1193283/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com 5/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25542777/ 6/ https://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/10/3019?utm_source=chatgpt.com 7/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/why-parents-should-avoid-using-technology-as-digital-pacifiers-to-calm-young-children/

Recently, Dr. Jonathan Haidt, author of, “The Anxious Generation – How The Great Rewiring Of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic Of Mental Health” (1) has publicly argued against the use of educational technology (Ed Tech) in schools, suggesting that it negatively affects learning by altering dopamine responses in students. His statement, which has been widely shared online, claims that gamifying a quarter of a child's school day with screen-based rewards may increase engagement initially but ultimately makes non-screen activities seem more boring. As a result, he argues, children may end up learning less than if technology had not been used at all because of the dopamine effect. (2)  In fact, in a recent Instagram reel Dr Haidt stated: “if you gamify a 1/4 of a child’s school day with screen based rewards you will get more engagement during that part of the day it will work or it will seem to work, but their dopamine neurone will then “adapt” to that and everything not on a screen will now be more boring that it would have been if you didn’t gamify it for a 1/4 of the day, so the child will end up perhaps learning a lot less if you hadn’t used ed based tech to teach them” (3) In this YouTube video (4) , Dr. Haidt made the same statement at the 36-minute, 13-second mark. However, he prefaced it by saying that after reading Dr. Anna Lembke’s book, Dopamine Nation , he formulated the above noted opinion in the form of a “Haiku”. Having read Dopamine Nation ourselves, we found no evidence-based research supporting such a statement, nor did we find any instance where Dr. Lembke made such an assertion in her book. While this claim may sound compelling on the surface, our research, and consultations with the PhD experts who actually study dopamine suggest otherwise, so our spider sense started to tingle . Given our experience in digital literacy and internet safety, we sought input from PhD researchers who specialize in dopamine studies. Their responses directly challenge Dr. Haidt’s assertions and highlight the importance of basing arguments on actual scientific evidence rather than assumptions. Understanding Dopamine’s Role in Learning Dopamine is often misunderstood as a "pleasure chemical" when, in reality, it is more accurately described as a neurotransmitter involved in motivation, learning, and reinforcement. (5) The idea that dopamine neurons "adapt" to screen-based rewards and cause children to disengage from non-screen learning does not align with established neuroscience. Dr. Mark Humphries, a Professor of Computational Neuroscience who studies dopamine, explained that dopamine neurons do not simply "adapt". Instead, they respond to unexpected rewards but stop firing when a reward becomes predictable. In an email to us, Dr. Humphries elaborated: "Sounds like the quote is invoking the fact that we expect dopamine neurons to stop signalling once a new reward becomes predictable: they fire to unexpected rewards, but once one can reliably predict the reward AND gets the reward predicted, the dopamine neurons do not respond. They do not “adapt”, but are signalling there has been no error in the prediction." He further pointed out that if there is a decline in engagement with repeated screen exposure, it may be due to simple satiation, much like how food is less appealing when one is full, not because of any fundamental change in dopamine signalling. So, specific to Dr Haidt’s statement mentioned above, Dr Humphries stated: “So, spider sense is on the money I think: a lot of assumptions in there that would need strong evidence to stand up to scrutiny.”  We also reached out to Dr Steven Quartz, a researcher who also specializes in the study of dopamine, about Dr Haidt’s statement. His reply: “Regarding the statement in question, I don’t think there’s much evidence that dopamine neurons themselves ‘adapt’ in the way the statement suggests. That is, video-based instruction is not causing the non-screen instruction to be less engaging due to some effect the video instruction has on dopamine neurons.” Dr Quartz further went on to share with us: “No doubt video games and potentially video-based instruction can be very engaging because they incorporate markers of progress towards goals (eg accumulating points towards completing a level), which do engage dopamine-based learning. They can also be very visually engaging, which promotes attention. It’s possible there’s a general contrast effect, but that would be due making the less engaging aspects of non-video instruction more salient rather than an effect on dopaminergic neurons. A potential strategy would be to use non-video instruction first in the day followed by video-based instruction.” Also, in a recent online posting, according to Dr Steven Quartz a recent study found no evidence of dopamine “tolerance”, which leads to dopamine deficiency. (6) As Dr Quartz stated, this 2024 study cautions against simplistic parallels between addictions and ordinary rewards. (7) Where Is the Evidence? The primary issue with Dr. Haidt’s statement is that it lacks empirical and researched based evidence. While concerns about overuse of technology in education are valid and worthy of discussion, claims about the negative neurological impact of Ed Tech on dopamine and learning need to be backed by rigorous scientific studies. When we examined the available research, and consulted with the experts who study dopamine, we found no conclusive evidence linking Ed Tech to the kind of dopamine-driven disengagement that Haidt describes. In fact, studies have shown positive effects of dopamine on learning (8) Many researchers have found that technology, when used as a supplement rather than a replacement for traditional teaching methods, combined with evidence based educational pedagogy surrounding the use of technology in the classroom, can enhance motivation, engagement, and comprehension, especially for students who struggle with conventional instruction. (9) Dr. Haidt is not a neuroscientist, nor is he a researcher specializing in dopamine studies. This does not mean his opinions should be dismissed outright, but it does mean that his claims should be subject to the same scrutiny as any scientific hypothesis or opinion. When influential figures make broad claims about technology’s impact on children, it is crucial to demand evidence rather than accept assertions at face value based on very loose interpretation of research. The assumption that screen-based learning inherently diminishes a child’s ability to focus on non-screen activities because of dopamine is an “opinion”, not a proven evidence-based fact. Until robust research supports such claims, caution is necessary before advocating for drastic changes, such as outright banning Ed Tech in schools, based on Dr Haidt’s opinions on this issue. Dr. Haidt’s claim that Ed Tech negatively impacts learning by disrupting dopamine responses is not supported by neuroscience experts we consulted with or any current research we could find. While concerns about excessive screen time and digital distraction in schools are valid, broad claims about neurological harm need substantial evidence. As we navigate the evolving role of technology in education, it is essential to base decisions on rigorous research rather than assumptions or fear-driven narratives. The conversation about Ed Tech should not be framed as a binary choice between full adoption and outright rejection. Instead, we should focus on best pedagogy practices that maximize educational benefits while addressing potential drawbacks. Only by taking an evidence-based approach can we ensure that technology serves as a tool for enhancing, rather than hindering, learning. 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/book-review-the-anxious-generation-how-the-great-rewiring-of-childhood-is-causing-an-epidemic-of-mental-health/ 2/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l_pIVJwgFI&t=1s 3/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGdb11jJSIk/ 4 / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_GY-cW4-Dc&t=1s 5/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/dopamine-facts-vs-fear/ 6/ https://x.com/stevenquartz/status/1899843884664148240?s=46 7/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40043691/ 8/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230606111734.htm 9/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/first-it-was-the-phones-now-some-want-to-ban-all-tech-in-the-classroom/

In the fast-paced onlife world, artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing at breakneck speed, creating While AI deepfake technology, which can alter images and videos to make them appear real, has been around AI is transforming everything from how we communicate to how we work. AI deepfakes are a prime example of how this technology can be misused. Parents and teens alike need to stay informed about the growing risks and benefits posed by AI.

In today’s onlife world, we’re constantly bombarded with headlines in the media making bold claims about research findings, especially when it comes to parenting, technology, and child development. But not all research is reported accurately, and it’s easy to be misled by sensationalized conclusions that lack important context. That’s why parents and caregivers need to take a critical approach when reading online articles or social media posts about scientific studies. This is also why we here at the White Hatter turn to a group of well respected PhD researchers in this field of study to help us interpret the research. A common issue in science reporting by those who are not researchers is the misrepresentation of statistical findings. Sometimes, studies find only tiny correlations between two factors, yet media outlets or advocacy groups exaggerate, or cherry pick, these results to make them sound more dramatic than they really are. Consider a recent Canadian study that examined violent screen time in preschoolers and later antisocial behaviour in teens. (1) The actual statistical results of the study were so close to zero that they were essentially meaningless, nothing more than statistical noise. Yet, some people clouded the context of the findings by making claims online like: “Violent Screen Time in Preschool Predicts Violent Behaviour in Teens!” Without looking at the actual numbers or considering the broader scientific context, this claim is misleading and can create unnecessary fear among parents. Other confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, family environment, or pre-existing mental health conditions, could be far more influential than social media use when it comes to predicting violent behaviour in teens. When parents see headlines like “Violent Screen Time in Preschool Predicts Violent Behaviour in Teens!”, they might panic and make drastic decisions based on incomplete or misrepresented information rather than looking at the broader scientific consensus. When we don’t critically evaluate the research behind headlines, we risk making parenting decisions based on fear rather than facts. To avoid being misled by exaggerated or misrepresented research findings, parents and caregivers should consider: Sensationalized click-bait headlines are designed to grab attention but often leave out critical details. Always read the full article as well as the actual research before drawing conclusions. If a study finds a correlation, how strong is it? If the effect is close to zero, it’s likely not meaningful. Is the study accounting for other variables, known as confounding factors, that could influence the results? Trusted sources like scientific journals, universities, and reputable researchers often provide more nuanced interpretations of study results. If an article uses fear-based language rather than facts, be skeptical. However, the challenge for parents and caregivers who are not researchers - it’s really hard to interpret and make sense of academic research studies. To be honest, reading some of these studies is like watching paint dry. That is why we here at the White Hatter attempt to make such research more “understandable” for parents, caregivers, educators, and teens which at times is not an easy task. Science, and evidence-based research is an essential tool for understanding the world, but when research is misrepresented, it can lead to unnecessary panic and poor decision-making. As parents, caregivers, and educators it’s important to approach research findings and media headlines with a critical eye, ensuring that we rely on facts rather than fear when making decisions about our children’s well-being. The key issue here isn’t whether we should act when we see harm, but whether the data actually indicates “real” harm. If the research figure comes from statistical noise, meaning it’s not a reliable or meaningful signal, then using it to justify widespread changes is misleading. Just like we wouldn’t recall food based on a faulty thermometer reading, we shouldn’t push for major policy or social shifts based on numbers that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Acting on unreliable data doesn’t just create unnecessary panic; it also distracts us from focusing on real, evidence-based risks that need attention. We believe this approach keeps the focus on the validity of the data rather than appearing dismissive of potential harm Next time you see a dramatic claim in a news article or social media post, take a step back, dig into the actual research, and ask yourself: Is this really what the study found, or is this just a case of science being lost in translation to fit a narrative, a political agenda, or to generate clicks? 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.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/1/129

They appear to be AI-generated illustrations, visual interpretations created by an algorithm that the And AI-generated illustrations are not scientific proof. believe that Matter Neuroscience appears to offers an innovative and novel tool for self-reflection that aims And in this case, the trail led us to these AI generated images being used as a marketing tool.

article In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence, "empathetic Artificial Intelligence (AI AI companionship apps are designed to offer users a responsive, always-available "friend" or "partner Fact - AI companionship apps offer highly engaging, immersive experiences, which can appeal to a teen While the concept of AI companionship can seem harmless, especially if the AI is “just a program,” there However, there might be situations where AI companionship apps may serve a positive purpose, such as

ChatGPT is a well-known name in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and it is likely that you will text-based conversations with an AI-based program. By incorporating ChatGPT's capabilities with other AI technologies, such as AI art engines, it is possible students about the basics of AI, as well as its potential risks and benefits. These skills are necessary to evaluate AI sources and ensure equitable outcomes.

has advanced to the point where many of those earlier “tells” are no longer reliable with the newer AI example, the night vision video of bunnies on a trampoline that went viral, but was later confirmed to be AI Professionals in journalism and OSINT are on the front lines of what some now call “AI slop”, the flood His guide on detecting AI-generated content outlines current strategies and even highlights free tools how-to-spot-a-deepfake-audio-evidence-based-strategies-for-teens-and-adults 4/   https://gijn.org/resource/guide-detecting-ai-generated-content

At TheWhite Hatter, we recognize the double-edged nature of Artificial Intelligence (AI). evolution, however, has left society with minimal guardrails, particularly as companies rush to integrate AI Companionship apps are AI-driven platforms that simulate human interaction, often creating the illusion in crisis, this means the app may subtly affirm or even mirror harmful thoughts, especially if the AI In a world where AI is rapidly advancing, companionship apps highlight the need for greater awareness

revealed a disturbing new trend confirming our earlier predictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI The live AI-generated streaming video responded to “ALL” requests made via text, convincingly simulating This represents our first documented instance of what we believe to be live “streaming” AI being employed With AI advancements, it's crucial to exercise extreme caution when engaging in any form of sexualized