*** Updated May 2026 *** Chapter 8:The Dopamine Connection – Facts vs Fear Caveat - This article isn’t over whether dopamine plays some role in rewarding or motivating behaviour. Of course it does. The disagreement is over whether we have sufficient evidence to describe ordinary social media use as producing drug-like dopamine spikes that lead to tolerance, desensitization, and addiction through the same neurobiological mechanisms as substances such as cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine as is often stated online and in some popular books 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. *** Update May 2026 *** This new study is important because it does not support the popular claim that social media “floods the brain with dopamine.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925492726000090?utm_source=chatgpt.com Researchers used a brain imaging method called neuromelanin-sensitive MRI, which can act as a rough marker of dopamine-related functioning. They studied 72 young adults aged 18 to 35 and compared their scores on a problematic social media use scale with dopamine-related brain markers. They found no significant relationship between higher problematic social media use and the dopamine marker they measured. For parents, the takeaway is this: Social media may still feel rewarding because likes, comments, notifications, and social validation can activate the brain’s reward system. However, this study suggests we should be careful about saying social media works like a drug or that it directly “floods” the brain with dopamine. The science is more nuanced!!! 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." Parents and caregivers are being bombarded with claims that “quick dopamine hits” from social media and gaming drain motivation, damage the brain, and create addiction. These messages get packaged as neuroscience, but they’re not. Much of what circulates online about dopamine and technology is pseudoscience, and it can leave families worried about dangers that aren’t supported by actual research. Those who study dopamine for a living often point to this trend as the “cheap dopamine” theory. It sounds scientific, but it misrepresents how the brain works. Dr. Steven Quartz (PhD), one of the world’s leading dopamine researchers, explains it plainly in a November 25th 2025 posting on his X Account: “Cheap dopamine is a meme built on bad neuroscience… an updated version of old arguments about ‘low pleasures.’ We don’t need faux dopamine talk to follow ideas that date back to Plato.” Dr. Quartz also notes that this narrative gets the biology wrong. Dopamine isn’t a fuel tank that runs dry. It doesn’t get “depleted” by scrolling or gaming. The popular idea that dopamine receptors get worn out by everyday digital activity ignores decades of research on how tightly dopamine is regulated through synthesis and reuptake. His words are direct: “Dopamine doesn’t deplete like a bank account… everyday experiences don’t empty some ‘dopamine gas tank.’ Metaphors can be useful, but they should reflect the science, not distort it.” This is why parents and caregivers need to be cautious when they encounter dramatic claims framed as brain science. Fear-based explanations spread quickly, but they often oversimplify or ignore what the neuroscience community actually understands about motivation, reward, and human behaviour. Kids deserve guidance rooted in evidence, not anxiety driven by catchy but misleading ideas. 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/ Fact based on the good research mentioned in this article is that dopamine is involved in social media use, just as it is involved in eating, exercise, learning, music, social connection, anticipation, and countless other human experiences. Its involvement does not, by itself, prove addiction. The popular narrative that every swipe, like, or notification creates a dopamine spike that progressively desensitizes the brain and causes addiction is a much stronger scientific claim, and one that requires direct evidence rather than repetition of a compelling neuroscience metaphor that has flooded public discussion surrounding youth and their sometimes problematic use of technology and social media. Here’s a great video from our Friend Dr Rachel Kowert https://youtu.be/4BCryhR00Do

Some tech companies say they use AI and moderators, to detect harmful content, but investigative reports

However, the same AI-driven capabilities that allow companies like Google to analyze screenshots for AI-powered systems, such as Google’s new Gemini, are already being developed to recognize travel-related If AI can recognize landmarks in travel photos, it could also be trained to compare images against known If Google’s AI can analyze screenshots for travel metadata for their financial benefit, isn’t it reasonable AI has the power to revolutionize digital safety, but its implementation must be carefully considered

The prospect of banning TikTok in the United States has been a topic of fierce debate for years. Concerns about data security, national sovereignty, and the app's connection to the Chinese government have prompted legislators to push for restrictions or outright bans that could take place by January 19th in the US, depending on a pending decision from their Supreme Court. However, the very demographic most affected by such actions, teens and young adults, seems to be responding in a way that few policymakers might have anticipated - they are downloading other Chinese apps as a form of protest and, more intriguingly,  what we see as a form of malicious compliance. So why is this phenomenon occurring, what it signifies, and what lessons policymakers and parents can take from it. Malicious compliance is a term used to describe when individuals follow rules or demands so literally or excessively that their compliance undermines the intent of those rules. It’s often a form of subtle rebellion, where the act of "obeying" is designed to highlight perceived absurdity, unfairness, or hypocrisy. In the case of TikTok, teens and young adults are keenly aware of the broader societal and political controversies surrounding the app. Rather than passively accepting a potential ban, some are downloading alternative apps from Chinese developers, such as RedNote, CapCut, or Lemon8, as a way to say, “If TikTok is banned for being Chinese-owned, what about these apps?” So Why Are Teens and Young Adults Doing This? For many, social media is more than just entertainment; it's a cornerstone of their social lives, creativity, and personal expression. The prospect of losing access to TikTok feels like a violation of their autonomy. Downloading similar apps is a way to reclaim control over their online experiences. Many young people view the potential TikTok ban as performative politics - an attempt to gain favour by appearing “tough on China” rather than addressing broader issues of data privacy or the monopolistic tendencies of tech giants. By downloading other apps from Chinese companies, they’re calling attention to what they see as the inconsistency or inadequacy of these policies. Teens and young adults are highly attuned to trends, especially those that align with their values. Malicious compliance offers a way to both rebel and bond with others over shared frustration, creating a sense of collective resistance. Apps like CapCut, which offers advanced video editing tools, or Lemon8, a lifestyle and shopping-focused platform, (both owned by ByteDance a Chinese based company that also owns TikTok) align well with the content creation habits of TikTok users. Curiosity about these alternatives provides a practical motivation, even if the initial download is driven by defiance. While downloading additional apps might feel like a clever act of rebellion, it isn’t without risks. Many of the same concerns surrounding TikTok, such as data collection, privacy issues, and potential foreign influence, apply to these alternatives. By increasing the number of apps tied to the same Chinese based ecosystem, users may inadvertently amplify their exposure to vulnerabilities. This response also raises questions about the efficacy of legislative approaches to online safety. Banning a single app without addressing systemic issues like data regulation and user privacy across all platforms is unlikely to resolve the root concerns. Some thoughts for Policymakers based upon the malicious compliance we are presently seeing: Teens and young adults are demonstrating that bans targeting specific apps are ineffective without broader regulations. Policymakers should focus on universal standards for data security and privacy across all platforms, regardless of ownership including those based in North America. Young people are not passive recipients of policy, they are active participants in shaping digital culture. Policymakers must involve them in discussions about online safety, not dismiss their concerns or assume compliance. Singling out specific apps without addressing the practices of other platforms (many of which also engage in extensive data collection) fosters skepticism and resistance. A consistent approach to online safety will earn more respect and compliance. Parents and caregivers should view this trend as an opportunity to discuss broader digital literacy topics with their teens, including data privacy, security, and the implications of app ownership. Rather than framing these apps as "bad" or inherently dangerous, focus on teaching critical thinking and responsible online behaviour. These conversations can empower young people to navigate the digital world thoughtfully, rather than reactively. The rise of malicious compliance through the current trend of downloading Chinese apps is a fascinating example of how young people can wield technology as a tool of resistance. It underscores the need for policies that go beyond performative measures to address the real challenges surrounding the use of technology. For parents and policymakers alike, it’s a reminder of the importance of engaging with, rather than dictating to, youth and young adults. The trend of teens and young adults downloading alternative Chinese apps in response to potential TikTok bans highlights a deeper, multifaceted issue at the intersection of technology, politics, and youth culture. This phenomenon of malicious compliance serves as a powerful statement against perceived inconsistencies in policymaking, demonstrating the active role young people play in shaping digital culture and resisting top-down decisions they find unreasonable. For policymakers, this is a call to move beyond symbolic gestures and adopt comprehensive strategies that address systemic issues like data privacy and security across all platforms. Engaging youth in meaningful dialogue about these policies can foster trust and more effective outcomes. For parents, this trend underscores the importance of promoting digital literacy and critical thinking, enabling young people to make informed decisions about their online behaviours. Ultimately, this moment serves as a reminder that young people are not merely passive consumers of technology but active participants in its evolution, capable of using it to assert their autonomy and challenge the status quo. A collaborative approach that respects their voices will not only strengthen online safety but also bridge generational gaps in understanding the onlife world As the January 19th TikTok deadline approaches, the debate over TikTok will continues and one thing is being made clear - teens and young adults will not be silent spectators. They are active participants in today’s onlife world, and their actions, even in defiance, reflect their values, frustrations, and hopes. As Brandon stated in his FaceBook posting on the App RedNote yesterday, “The scale of anti-government protests and public outrage over a possible TikTok ban, centred around free speech and personal choice, is hard to ignore. It’s quite remarkable.” Related Article: NOTE - We have attempted to read the RedNote privacy policy and we can't given that it is written in Chinese. Given this fact, we DO NOT recommend that this app to be download on your device. Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech

Given that approximately 20% of Facebook users have been exposed to malware, and that over 600,000 accounts are hacked almost daily, www.247Wallst.com released an article that they called “9 Ways that a Criminal Uses Facebook” that, I think, we should all be aware of and that I will share with you here: • HACKING ACCOUNTS: Common tools used to complete a successful hack using common passwords, names, and dates. • COMMANDEERING ACCOUNTS: Criminals login to an existing user account using an illegally-obtained password and ID. Immediately after logging in, they access the victim’s friend list. One of the best schemes is to ask friends for money. The hacker will claim that the person they’re hacking is stranded somewhere and needs money quickly. It’s effective because a high level of trust exists among users. • USER PROFILE CLONING: The act of using unprotected images and information to create a Facebook account with the same name and details of an existing user is profile cloning. Cloners will send friend requests to the same friends the victim has and gain access to others’ information to commit fraud. This is scary, yet simple. • CROSS-PLATFORM PROFILE CLONING: occurs when the cyber thief obtains information and images from Facebook and uses them to create false profiles on another social-networking site. This fraud is dangerous because victims may never realize they’ve been hacked. • PHISHING: When a hacker poses as a respected organization or individual and asks for personal data, it’s phishing. This occurs mostly via wall posts and direct messages. Once users click on the link, they are sent to a website loaded with malware or to a website where they are asked to provide information. • FAKE FACEBOOK: Scammers will direct a user to some sort of clickable enticement, to a Facebook login page designed to look like the real thing. When the victim enters a username and password, they are collected in a database, which the scammer will then sell. • AFFINITY FRAUD: When the con artist assumes the identity of a person to earn the trust of those close to them. The criminals will exploit the earned trust by stealing information or money. Facebook, unfortunately, facilitates this type of fraud because its network is based around “friending” anyone and everyone. • MINING UNPROTECTED INFO: Facebook users tend to reveal their emails, phone numbers, addresses, birth dates, and other private data. A hacker’s basic training is to start with this kind of information to access accounts. While the majority of unprotected information is mined for targeted advertising, it can be a means to more pernicious ends such as profile cloning and, ultimately, identity theft. SPAM: “Clickjacking” is illegal and it involves the hacking of a personal account using an advertisement for a viral video or article. The user clicks on the ad, which then leads the program to send an advertisement to the person’s friends through their account without their knowledge. It’s important to be educated and aware of these subjects so you can spot them before any harm can be done. Digital Food For Thought Darren Laur AKA #thewhitehatter

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/

Those who flew into the twin towers had no hands-on training to fly a jet airliner – their skills, strategies

Platforms like X’s “Community Notes” aim to crowdsource fact-checking by allowing users to upvote or

and applicability of AI-generated content, and continuously refining and guiding AI processes. Here’s how: Encouraging AI as a brainstorming tool: Instead of banning AI-generated content, teachers Teaching AI literacy: Educators who acknowledge AI’s presence can teach students how to critically evaluate Using AI for personalized learning: AI-driven tutoring systems can help teachers identify students who By fostering responsible AI use, encouraging students to engage critically with AI-generated content,

Today, with AI-generated deepfake content becoming more realistic and accessible, the urgency to educate Teaching youth to think critically about social media, AI, sextortion, or digital manipulation is not Trying to solve “online safety” in isolation is like putting a Band-Aid on a leaking dam.

Additionally, Meta has implemented artificial intelligence (AI) tools to help detect instances where If AI detects discrepancies, the account may be reverted to the more restrictive teen settings. 5. perfect, the ongoing conversation about digital safety, along with the use of innovative tools like AI

These teens were well aware of the potential for misinformation and AI “hallucinations.” This shows a critical shift, students are not blindly trusting AI, they’re starting to critically engaging Because when students are using AI not to bypass learning, but to deepen it, that’s not a threat to education They aren’t naive about the risks of misinformation and disinformation, from conspiracy theories and AI-generated From their nuanced understanding of privacy to their responsible use of AI, the beginning signs that