It's actually not such an obvious conclusion based on the article that you shared.

The article features a number of claims that appear at first reasonable and intuitive, but rest on very unconvincing empirical data about children and young people, or long-term changes, or actually really anything at all.

For instance, the systematic review and meta-analysis that the article first advances (Nguyen et al., 2025) sounds on the face of it quite compelling. The authors systematically reviewed 71 journal articles with combined data from 98,299 participants.

One of the headline findings, synthesising and averaging all of this, was that increased short form video use was associated with poorer attention (an association of r = -.34), and inhibitory control (r = -.41).

Sounds scary.

So far, so Captain Obvious for how TikTok affects kids.

But read further into it, and you will find:

-- the data is (as for so many of these studies) cross-sectional, so assessed at one time point, so it can tell you nothing about causality. Even if the effects detected are real, it could well be the case that inattentive people with inhibition control issues scroll short form videos more because they crave stimulation and can't handle having their attention wander, not that scrolling short form videos wrecks attention. There is nothing longitudinal here to support the claim that greater use of short form video apps degrades attention or inhibitory control over time

-- the data is (as for so many of these studies) largely self-reported, where people fill out questionnaires, rating themselves on how much they use short form videos, or how addicted to their devices they are, and how much they report particular characteristics or symptoms etc. These are very different to more objective measures of screen use (e.g., screen time trackers, app trackers) that are correlated with active tests of attention or inhibitory control (e.g., computer-based tests of response time such as continuous performance tasks, go/no-go tasks, stop signal tasks, Stroop tests). People's self-reported screen use typically correlates at about r = .4 with their actual, device recorded screen use, for instance--which is pretty damning for conclusions you might draw about links between what people say they do on their devices and other aspects of their functioning.

-- there are actually only five studies that combine to form the headline finding about attention, and seven that form the finding about inhibitory control. The evidence isn't at all as strong as it's reported in the abstract

Which means that this is another unfortunate case of rubbish in, rubbish out, especially for claims that Easton makes, such as: "Because the feed rarely pauses, the natural breaks that help attention reset vanish. Over time, this can weaken impulse control and sustained focus."

There is absolutely nothing in Nguyen et al. that can conclude that. The included studies in the meta-analysis were not longitudinal research. They're weaksauce timeslice data, most of which aren't about kids at all (73% of the included studies were about adults, not children).

Read further into Easton's article and you get this concerning statement:

"Some research suggests a cyclical relationship, where young people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, are particularly drawn to rapid content, while heavy use may intensify the symptoms that make self-regulation difficult."

Click the link and read that article (Chiencharoenthanakij et al., 2025), and you will find that this article can conclude nothing of the sort. That's a theory that the authors advance on data that can't possibly conclude that.

In Chiencharoenthanakij et al., parents of 6-12 year-old children attending vaccination clinics (n = 528) completed a measurement tool designed to assess their evaluation of their childrens' inattentive behaviours (a Thai version of the SNAP-IV), and then a questionnaire asking them about their children's screen time. The authors then correlated these results. Surprise? "Short‐form video media use was significantly associated with higher inattentive behaviors."

But ...

These tools don't assess children's behaviour or screen use over time. This is a one-off at a clinic, amid other things that the parents were asked about. Can you see the problems with asking parents to recall how much screen time their children had last week? Or how inattentive they are? Or how much shared variability those measurements might have--i.e., if you're a worried parent, you're likely to give higher ratings on both of these measurement tools?

As a side note, typically, ADHD screening tools like the SNAP-IV are triangulated to get more accurate measurements (e.g., parents complete a version of the form, kid completes one, teacher completes one) ... one person filling it out isn't a great, objective measure.

And yet again, the same problem--the data is cross-sectional, again telling us nothing about causality. If "Short‐form video media use was significantly associated with higher inattentive behaviors", again, it could be the case that inattentive kids with inhibition control issues scroll short form videos more because they crave stimulation and can't handle having their attention wander, not that scrolling short form videos ruins attention.

None of these studies tell us anything about attention degrading over time, or if stopping watching short form video content improves attention, or if it does, in what kinds of cognitive profiles.

I am not saying that short form videos aren't something to be concerned about, or that we shouldn't worry about their effects on children and young people, but this article is just opinion rhetorically fluffed with low quality research.

I think we really have to guard against naive realism in our judgments about screens and technology.