Two years ago, Max Stolfe was in a dark place. He had just transferred to a new college in New York, and he was struggling to keep up with the workload. He had, by his own account, one friend. After years in and out of therapy, he didn’t have much to show for it, and no one to turn to with his hopelessness. So he did the only thing he could think to do: He posted on Reddit.

“I’m not sure if this is a rant or a cry for help,” he wrote, explaining that he felt like “no one really cares about me,” and “I don’t know what to do.”


Over 2,000 miles away, in Canada, Ryan Stroeder logged onto Reddit. Stroeder barely knew how to use the site—he had, until that point, only used Reddit a few times to comment on threads about motorcycle repairs—but when he saw Stolfe’s post on his home page, he knew he couldn’t ignore it.

“It had been sitting there for like 12 hours, which is an eternity in internet time,” Stroeder says. “No one had given this guy any advice.” And so, he wrote back, as if simply to say, ‘I’m here for you’:

“Ouch. Sounds like you’re having a tough time max. That sucks. I’ve been there, so I kinda know what you’re talking about. I’ve been in the ever circling vortex of self doubt, frustration, and loathing. It’s no bueno. I know.

Rule numero uno – There are no more zero days. What’s a zero day? A zero day is when you don’t do a single fucking thing towards whatever dream or goal or want or whatever that you got going on. No more zeros. I’m not saying you gotta bust an essay out everyday, that’s not the point. The point I’m trying to make is that you have to make yourself, promise yourself, that the new SYSTEM you live in is a NON-ZERO system. Didn’t do anything all fucking day and it’s 11:58 PM? Write one sentence. One pushup. Read one page of that chapter. One. Because one is non zero.”

The internet has long been a place to unload our problems and confess our darkest secrets—and those admissions haven’t always been positive. Reddit, in particular, has earned a controversial reputation as the birthplace of threads like r/thefappening, devoted to 2014’s infamous leaked celebrity nudes, and r/thedonald, which spawned the now-closed subreddit that recently drove an armed conspiracy theorist to investigate the so-called Pizzagate rumors. But increasingly, online communities are taking the place of IRL therapists for people to divulge and deal with their mental health. Even the darkest places, like Reddit, can surprise you with its displays of humanity.

On Reddit, groups like r/mentalhealth provide spaces to share garden-variety psychological problems; r/anxiety responds in real time to anxiety attacks; r/gettingoverit offers support for trauma, depression, and doubt. There are groups for eating disorders, for suicidal thoughts, and for people who are simply feeling stuck—made up of thousands of regular users who respond to queries in real time, with real support.

“Peer support can be very effective,” said Dr. John Torous, the co-director of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Digital Psychiatry Program, which researches the intersection of technology and mental health solutions. Torous says the most effective mental health apps all have some kind of human element. In other words, technology can make mental health care more accessible, but it isn’t perfect. “I think the trick is that, sometimes, it doesn’t have the structure or the certainty of professional help.”

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]His cry for help had been sitting there for like 12 hours, which is an eternity in internet time.[/quote]

Still, the DIY approach has its benefits: Research has shown that young people, in particular, are reluctant to seek professional help. Reddit therapy, on the other hand, is free, mostly anonymous, and always at one’s fingertips.

“We know that right now, less than 50 percent of individuals with mental illness are receiving treatment for their mental illness,” said Adam Haim, the technology lead at the National Institute of Mental Health. “If you look at online communities, there’s definitely an opportunity to identify signals of concern”—changes in language that may indicate a manic episode or a suicide threat, for example—“and then triage very quickly.”

Reddit, in particular, seems promising. Last year, when the site turned 10 years old, there were close to 73 million posts and 82 billion page views, along with millions of users who are there to act as a safety net when someone posts a cry for help. One study, presented at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence’s annual conference on blogs and social media, found that comments in subreddits, like r/depression and r/mentalhealth, were “surprisingly high quality” and provided more emotional support and prescriptive advice than both Twitter and Facebook. The researchers, from Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Interactive Computing and Arizona State University’s Department of Computer Science, concluded that Reddit can “(fulfill) unique information and social needs of a cohort challenged with a stigmatic health concern.”

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]There’s something incredible about the internet being able to help people, but I guess to me, it still seems uncharted.[/quote]

Like others I spoke with, Stolfe says he turned to Reddit because he didn’t want to burden his friends or family. Plus, he wasn’t sure if he was just going through a rough patch or if he was struggling with something more serious, like depression. “Looking back at it,” he says, “writing that post was the first indication that I couldn’t handle (my problems) by myself anymore.”

Subreddits like r/suicidewatch are full of posts like this: “I really think I should tell someone I want to kill myself, but I have no one to talk to … This post would actually be the first time I’ve told anyone I want to kill myself.” Because people are more likely to divulge sensitive information in online support groups than in IRL ones, spaces like Reddit can actually be the first step in getting someone help.

Erin, who asked that we not use her last name, started posting on r/suicidewatch after struggling with depression and suicidal feelings. “When I came here, I wasn’t looking for help or someone to tell me how to fix things,” she told me. “Instead I needed to be heard. I needed to be able to say that I wasn’t ok and that I didn’t know any way to be okay. Someone read my post and they didn’t try to fix me.”

“Reddit is a terrible place to be doing any kind of crisis intervention,” said Erin, who is now a moderator for r/SuicideWatch, r/depression, and several other mental health-related subreddits. Since most redditors aren’t psychologists, replies on desperate posts can be a grab bag of consolation, trolling, and prescriptive advice. Sometimes, she told me, people will post well-intentioned replies—writing things like, “It gets better,” or “You should try X”—that can end up doing more harm than good.

Moderators have tried to mitigate these replies with guidelines. On r/suicidewatch, for example, there’s a sidebar that states the rules: no judgment, no abuse, no trolling, and most importantly, no diagnoses:

“It’s fine to share what worked for you, but DO NOT advocate for or against any specific type of therapy, self-help strategy, or medication, especially street drugs or alcohol, and DO NOT diagnose people.”

Stroeder, whose reply to Stolfe’s post has spawned an entirely new subreddit, Non-Zero Days, for people who are feeling stuck in a rut, says he still receives messages every day from people who read his original exchange with Stolfe. But he doesn’t see himself as some kind of messiah or as someone who is particularly qualified to give advice.

“It’s not about me telling you how to live,” he said. “It’s just, ‘Hey, here’s something that works for me and if you want, (you can) interpret it in your own personal way and use it as a tool to improve your own life.’”

Since posting on Reddit two years ago, Stolfe started going to therapy. He’s also been opening up more to his friends and family IRL. Now, when something is bothering him and he tells someone close to him, he doesn’t feel as if he’s burdening that person. He says he owes some of that to that singular Reddit post, which reassured him that he wasn’t alone or overreacting to his feelings.

“There’s something incredible about the internet being able to help people, but I guess to me, it still seems uncharted,” he says. “I really appreciate what that post did for me and what the site’s community said to me. People reach out to me even now about it, but (now) I want to turn to someone with professional expertise.”

Tags

More for You

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters
    Photo credit: CanvaA boy rides an e-scooter, left, while a girl is examined in an emergency room.

    An emergency room doctor and fellow mom has been noticing a troubling trend: Many parents are giving their kids something more powerful than bicycles to get around the neighborhood. As a result, she’s seeing more children come into the ER with injuries sustained in e-bike and e-scooter crashes. She recently went online with a plea to parents and young riders.

    Dr. Meghan Elizabeth Beach Martin, known online as Dr. Beachgem, posted a video in her scrubs discussing her concerns after seeing so many children come into the hospital with e-bike injuries during the summer months. She’s worried that too many kids and parents don’t understand the proper safety precautions. As a mother herself, she even questions why children are allowed to ride these devices at all.

    In the video, the doctor explains that some e-bikes can reach speeds of up to 28 mph. She says that if an e-bike goes any faster than that, it’s technically classified as a motorcycle. At those speeds, she regularly sees children with traumatic injuries and broken bones after hitting bumps, cracks in the road, or other vehicles. Many of them aren’t wearing helmets or protective pads, and some are even riding barefoot, making their injuries even more severe. Martin’s video has gained traction on Reddit and elsewhere online.

    E-bikes and e-scooters, examined

    Martin isn’t the only professional seeing a growing problem. The American College of Surgeons reports that there are more than 20,000 e-bike-related injuries each year. Meanwhile, a University of California, San Francisco study found that e-bike injuries doubled annually from 2017 to 2022. The same study found that e-scooter injuries increased by 45% each year during the same period.

    Before riding an e-bike, it’s important to follow proper safety procedures. Make sure you and your child understand your area’s laws regarding e-bikes, including any minimum age requirements. Always wear a helmet and other protective gear when riding. Consider choosing an e-bike with safety features such as motor-interrupt brake levers and disc brakes. These are just a few of the many safety tips experts recommend.

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has similar safety tips for e-scooter riders. Wearing a helmet is one of its top recommendations, along with taking other basic precautions. The agency also recommends checking the brakes before riding and slowing down for bumps, cracks, and other road hazards.

    The vast majority of e-scooters and e-bikes are designed for only one rider, so avoid doubling up. Although laws vary by state and locality, wearing more protective gear is always the safer choice. Riders should also review local e-bike and e-scooter laws to make sure they are operating the vehicles safely and legally.

    A little research goes a long way toward making sure you and your children can ride safely. It’s also important for parents to understand that many e-bikes and e-scooters can travel at speeds that make them very different from a traditional bicycle. The last thing you want is for you or your child to become another emergency room statistic.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance 

Research

Why we crave company