Thank you, Brooke and HEAT, for this tough-to-read report. What parents need to realize is that it has ALWAYS been this way on Snapchat. At its core, Snapchat is a frat boy invention designed to exploit. Our parental and societal acceptance of this level of willful corporate negligence is shocking. Personal liability was the Congressional response to ENRON in the early 2000's. Similarly, Evan Spiegel and the Board should be held personally liable for their actions.
The real problem with SnapChat isn't even mentioned in this article: the transitory nature of the site. SnapChat deletes messages almost immediately after they're read. This makes it impossible for parents to examine any content their kids are seeing after the fact (which is how almost all Internet filter software works.) The structure is obviously appealing to predators or all kinds (whether pedophiles or drug dealers). Unlike Facebook or Instagram or others, SnapChat is INTENDED to make messages impossible to trace or review.
For those who do need filter software, I teach seminars on Internet safety and currently use Qustodio in my own family. And when you get it, block snapchat and telegram and discord and reddit immediately.
The real problem with SnapChat isn't even mentioned in this article: the transitory nature of the site. SnapChat deletes messages almost immediately after they're read.
It has become increasingly clear to me that we need to preserve access to non-screen communication and activities. A lot of things are being phased out because “everything is online” but phasing those things out also pushes everyone online even more. Even the local library’s summer reading club for kids has been pushed to a stupid APP.
People don’t even carry a few dollars around to pay a coworker back for buying coffee. The norm is now to Venmo even a few dollars. We are pushed into screens for everything from paying bills, to reading news, and so much more that doesn’t NEED to be on our phones. Every stupid sign-up sheet and payment through my children’s school and nearly every assignment is on a screen. This is driven by the idea that screens are just inevitable, but it also drives the idea of inevitability as well in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. To add insult to injury, so many of these screen based platforms are more expensive in the long run. I have started noticing how many “convenience fees” there are for transactions that I am pushed to do online. I have started pushing back. I’m paying cash more and I’m using checks more to avoid the extra fees.
All this drives the pressure on parents to get phones for kids because everyone is feeling forced to do everything on these devices that have really only been around about 20 years. The bad news is how fast we have all been pushed to change in only 20 years. The good news though is that it has only been 20 years. Parents and grandparents remember how to live without these devices and we can do it again if we are willing to push back a bit to maintain options outside of apps and smartphones.
Smartphones do have their benefits. I’m not even advocating for every adult to get rid of them. Sometimes they are incredibly useful. But the danger comes in a society becoming completely dependent on one thing in order to function. And that one thing is addictive, a privacy nightmare, and highly profitable for big companies.
As a parent, it is so hard to see this happening to our children. These poor children cannot compete against tech companies that fight for their attention.
I share your concern that children should not be exposed to grooming, sextortion, graphic violence or other genuinely harmful content. Those are real problems, and platforms have a responsibility to minimise them.
Where I think we need to be more careful is the step from documenting exposure to identifying the primary cause of the current mental health crisis.
The Snapchat report tells us that children encounter harmful content. It does not tell us why some children develop anxiety or depression while others, despite similar exposure, remain psychologically healthy. That is a different scientific question.
Reading both the report and Brooke Istook's article, I was struck by something that is missing. There is no comparison with other platforms. There is no offline comparison. There is no attempt to explain susceptibility. The implicit assumption is that the platform is the principal causal variable.
I am not convinced that is where the evidence now points.
My own work analysing the international Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) dataset suggests that one of the strongest and most consistent correlates of adolescent well-being across countries is sleep. The pattern is remarkably robust. Poor sleep is associated with poorer well-being irrespective of culture, educational system or country.
That raises a different hypothesis.
Perhaps social media is not primarily creating vulnerability. Perhaps it is exploiting vulnerability.
A sleep-deprived adolescent is not simply a tired adolescent. They are more emotionally reactive, less able to regulate affect, less capable of reflective cognition, and biologically more vulnerable to stress. If that child then encounters bullying, sexual content or social comparison online, the impact is likely to be much greater than for a well-rested peer.
The causal pathway may therefore be closer to:
Developmental environment → poor sleep and autonomic dysregulation → increased susceptibility → social media amplifies the vulnerability.
That is very different from:
Social media → anxiety and depression.
The distinction matters because it changes the intervention.
If vulnerability is largely mediated through sleep and broader developmental factors, then banning or redesigning platforms may reduce one source of stress while leaving the underlying susceptibility untouched. Another technology, another peer group or another environmental stressor may simply occupy the same space.
History reminds us to be cautious. Simon Baron-Cohen has recently reflected that the language surrounding his "Extreme Male Brain" theory was misunderstood. Whatever one thinks of the theory itself, it illustrates how scientific hypotheses can become simplified into public narratives that later prove difficult to unwind.
My concern is that we may be creating something similar around social media. A complex developmental problem risks being reduced to a single-cause explanation.
I think the international HBSC evidence deserves a central place in this discussion. If sleep consistently predicts well-being across dozens of countries, then the question is no longer simply, "Is Snapchat harmful?" It is, "Why are some children vulnerable to that harm while others are not?"
Until we answer that question, we risk confusing the amplifier with the underlying cause. In medicine, we would not mistake smoke for fire. I worry we may be making the same mistake here.
This is truly shocking. Inappropriate content every few minutes, six hours a This is truly shocking. Inappropriate content every few minutes, six hours a day. And the saddest part — six hours of daily use has become the norm.
The content must be regulated, maybe even banned. But would that alone change the dynamic? Or would it just push the kids toward private Discord servers and online gambling?
Every parent of an anxious or depressed kid I see in the hospital blames the screens. But when we start discussing limits, the kids inevitably say: "What about you? Your phone?"
They have a point.
Social media is a villain that filled that vacuum left by disappeared village of real people doing real things. If parents spend twelve hours a day on screens — working, socializing, having fun— then six hours a day for the kids is only logical.
Regulate the platforms. But the most important step - we must get off the screens first, and bring the kids with us.
I agree that social media may be filling a developmental vacuum. The question I keep coming back to is: what is that vacuum? The HBSC data suggest it may be far more specific than "less community" or "too much screen time." Across countries, one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of adolescent well-being is sleep. My concern is that we are treating social media as the cause, when it may be exploiting a vulnerability created by chronic sleep loss and the developmental environment that produces it. If that's true, then regulating platforms addresses one amplifier, not the underlying susceptibility
For the "weapon" section. The images shown are of a fake plastic/rubber mold of a fictional firearm. As for the knives being more dangerous than a gun...this is a true statement. People take knives less serious than firearms (and people don't treat firearms properly either) and find out they kill you just as fast if you are stabbed/cut in the wrong place.
This is so disturbing and should be illegal for anyone under 18 to see. That being said, is this content effectively prevented by activating the controls in the family center? My teen is 16 and all of his friends communicate through snap. I have so far not allowed it, but I am aware that he’s nearing college age.
This kind of information increasingly makes me believe that there is no "balance" that we can advocate for. Any amount of time a child spends on these platforms is dangerous. Parents need to stop being delusional about the harms.
Thank you, Brooke and HEAT, for this tough-to-read report. What parents need to realize is that it has ALWAYS been this way on Snapchat. At its core, Snapchat is a frat boy invention designed to exploit. Our parental and societal acceptance of this level of willful corporate negligence is shocking. Personal liability was the Congressional response to ENRON in the early 2000's. Similarly, Evan Spiegel and the Board should be held personally liable for their actions.
The real problem with SnapChat isn't even mentioned in this article: the transitory nature of the site. SnapChat deletes messages almost immediately after they're read. This makes it impossible for parents to examine any content their kids are seeing after the fact (which is how almost all Internet filter software works.) The structure is obviously appealing to predators or all kinds (whether pedophiles or drug dealers). Unlike Facebook or Instagram or others, SnapChat is INTENDED to make messages impossible to trace or review.
For those who do need filter software, I teach seminars on Internet safety and currently use Qustodio in my own family. And when you get it, block snapchat and telegram and discord and reddit immediately.
Thing is I am an online (War) Gamer. A lot of Games/Gamers use discord to communicate.
The real problem with SnapChat isn't even mentioned in this article: the transitory nature of the site. SnapChat deletes messages almost immediately after they're read.
Learn Something New Every Day!
It has become increasingly clear to me that we need to preserve access to non-screen communication and activities. A lot of things are being phased out because “everything is online” but phasing those things out also pushes everyone online even more. Even the local library’s summer reading club for kids has been pushed to a stupid APP.
People don’t even carry a few dollars around to pay a coworker back for buying coffee. The norm is now to Venmo even a few dollars. We are pushed into screens for everything from paying bills, to reading news, and so much more that doesn’t NEED to be on our phones. Every stupid sign-up sheet and payment through my children’s school and nearly every assignment is on a screen. This is driven by the idea that screens are just inevitable, but it also drives the idea of inevitability as well in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. To add insult to injury, so many of these screen based platforms are more expensive in the long run. I have started noticing how many “convenience fees” there are for transactions that I am pushed to do online. I have started pushing back. I’m paying cash more and I’m using checks more to avoid the extra fees.
All this drives the pressure on parents to get phones for kids because everyone is feeling forced to do everything on these devices that have really only been around about 20 years. The bad news is how fast we have all been pushed to change in only 20 years. The good news though is that it has only been 20 years. Parents and grandparents remember how to live without these devices and we can do it again if we are willing to push back a bit to maintain options outside of apps and smartphones.
Smartphones do have their benefits. I’m not even advocating for every adult to get rid of them. Sometimes they are incredibly useful. But the danger comes in a society becoming completely dependent on one thing in order to function. And that one thing is addictive, a privacy nightmare, and highly profitable for big companies.
As a parent, it is so hard to see this happening to our children. These poor children cannot compete against tech companies that fight for their attention.
Maybe you should check to see what they are seeing in their schools from deranged liberal teachers?
I share your concern that children should not be exposed to grooming, sextortion, graphic violence or other genuinely harmful content. Those are real problems, and platforms have a responsibility to minimise them.
Where I think we need to be more careful is the step from documenting exposure to identifying the primary cause of the current mental health crisis.
The Snapchat report tells us that children encounter harmful content. It does not tell us why some children develop anxiety or depression while others, despite similar exposure, remain psychologically healthy. That is a different scientific question.
Reading both the report and Brooke Istook's article, I was struck by something that is missing. There is no comparison with other platforms. There is no offline comparison. There is no attempt to explain susceptibility. The implicit assumption is that the platform is the principal causal variable.
I am not convinced that is where the evidence now points.
My own work analysing the international Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) dataset suggests that one of the strongest and most consistent correlates of adolescent well-being across countries is sleep. The pattern is remarkably robust. Poor sleep is associated with poorer well-being irrespective of culture, educational system or country.
That raises a different hypothesis.
Perhaps social media is not primarily creating vulnerability. Perhaps it is exploiting vulnerability.
A sleep-deprived adolescent is not simply a tired adolescent. They are more emotionally reactive, less able to regulate affect, less capable of reflective cognition, and biologically more vulnerable to stress. If that child then encounters bullying, sexual content or social comparison online, the impact is likely to be much greater than for a well-rested peer.
The causal pathway may therefore be closer to:
Developmental environment → poor sleep and autonomic dysregulation → increased susceptibility → social media amplifies the vulnerability.
That is very different from:
Social media → anxiety and depression.
The distinction matters because it changes the intervention.
If vulnerability is largely mediated through sleep and broader developmental factors, then banning or redesigning platforms may reduce one source of stress while leaving the underlying susceptibility untouched. Another technology, another peer group or another environmental stressor may simply occupy the same space.
History reminds us to be cautious. Simon Baron-Cohen has recently reflected that the language surrounding his "Extreme Male Brain" theory was misunderstood. Whatever one thinks of the theory itself, it illustrates how scientific hypotheses can become simplified into public narratives that later prove difficult to unwind.
My concern is that we may be creating something similar around social media. A complex developmental problem risks being reduced to a single-cause explanation.
I think the international HBSC evidence deserves a central place in this discussion. If sleep consistently predicts well-being across dozens of countries, then the question is no longer simply, "Is Snapchat harmful?" It is, "Why are some children vulnerable to that harm while others are not?"
Until we answer that question, we risk confusing the amplifier with the underlying cause. In medicine, we would not mistake smoke for fire. I worry we may be making the same mistake here.
This is truly shocking. Inappropriate content every few minutes, six hours a This is truly shocking. Inappropriate content every few minutes, six hours a day. And the saddest part — six hours of daily use has become the norm.
The content must be regulated, maybe even banned. But would that alone change the dynamic? Or would it just push the kids toward private Discord servers and online gambling?
Every parent of an anxious or depressed kid I see in the hospital blames the screens. But when we start discussing limits, the kids inevitably say: "What about you? Your phone?"
They have a point.
Social media is a villain that filled that vacuum left by disappeared village of real people doing real things. If parents spend twelve hours a day on screens — working, socializing, having fun— then six hours a day for the kids is only logical.
Regulate the platforms. But the most important step - we must get off the screens first, and bring the kids with us.
I agree that social media may be filling a developmental vacuum. The question I keep coming back to is: what is that vacuum? The HBSC data suggest it may be far more specific than "less community" or "too much screen time." Across countries, one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of adolescent well-being is sleep. My concern is that we are treating social media as the cause, when it may be exploiting a vulnerability created by chronic sleep loss and the developmental environment that produces it. If that's true, then regulating platforms addresses one amplifier, not the underlying susceptibility
For the "weapon" section. The images shown are of a fake plastic/rubber mold of a fictional firearm. As for the knives being more dangerous than a gun...this is a true statement. People take knives less serious than firearms (and people don't treat firearms properly either) and find out they kill you just as fast if you are stabbed/cut in the wrong place.
This is so disturbing and should be illegal for anyone under 18 to see. That being said, is this content effectively prevented by activating the controls in the family center? My teen is 16 and all of his friends communicate through snap. I have so far not allowed it, but I am aware that he’s nearing college age.
This kind of information increasingly makes me believe that there is no "balance" that we can advocate for. Any amount of time a child spends on these platforms is dangerous. Parents need to stop being delusional about the harms.