Shouldn't the counterpoint be how the driver somehow is no longer responsible for the vehicle? Which, is why it would be absurd for Snapchat to be accountable? To me, this seems no different than the driver claiming they aren't fault because "someone dared me to".
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. [Wikipedia]
In my view, the driver is still liable (and that mustn't ever change) but Snapchat should have to prove to a judge that they shouldn't also be found liable.
No. Do you think that a GoPro somehow invites use in dangerous circumstances? (Yes, I do mean the GoPro itself, including its software, and I do mean to exclude GoPro's marketing collateral and all the UCC they didn't ask for from this analysis)