Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Opinion

child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.


According to More in Common, which recently surveyed parents in the U.S., U.K., France and Poland on their thoughts and experiences around online safety, 65% of U.S. parents are “very” concerned about their kids’ safety online, and another 28% are “somewhat” concerned (leaving 7% of parents not that concerned at all – a troubling number, even if it seems low).

And according to the researchers, deeper focus group sessions (which you can dive into by downloading the report here) showed many parents feel that other parents are undermining their ability to keep their children safe. Specifically, the researchers note that, “Differences in approaches between parents are seen as a source of tension, and a way for children to bypass the rules in their own household. This can lead to parents feeling powerless.”

Perhaps parents feel powerless because so often they are alone in this fight, given that the burden of responsibility for keeping kids safe online is lobbed squarely onto parents rather than onto the technology companies where it belongs. This is not by accident, or by default, but is a result of the democratic process failing to protect the most vulnerable among us – our children – from Big Tech. When there is no corporate accountability, the result is infighting and an inability for civil society to form a strong, united front.

We are in a divisive time in this country, politically, but we must not be divisive on this issue, and changing community norms is one of the best defenses we have right now against the risks our kids are facing. We know child sexual abuse material can be found on every platform. We know social media is problematic for a multitude of reasons for kids under 16 (and even older). The online realm, especially now that AI has exploded with essentially no guardrails and major support from the current administration, is only getting crazier and more dangerous. AI toys are the newest threat and should make every parent lose sleep at night.

Certainly not all kids are the same – what one child can handle online might be very different for the next child. And parents are the best judges of that. But let’s be real – not all parents are diligent or, as the More in Common research shows, all that concerned about the mental and physical risks posed to young people when they go online. We can be pro-tech and also pro-safety, but we have to be able to talk to each other and come to some agreement around what we, as a country, will allow for our children. But we won’t come to a consensus without first agreeing that it’s a collective problem with collective consequences.

There is legislation that will help to fight this problem and hold tech companies responsible for what happens on their platforms. And we must support this sort of policy action to get to the root cause. But as parents, the greatest power we have is our ability to come together. We must not let parental individualism get in our way of protecting our kids online.


Erin Nicholson is the strategic communications adviser for ChildFund International, a global nonprofit dedicated to protecting children online and offline. ChildFund launched the #TakeItDown campaign in 2023 to combat online child sexual abuse material. She is currently a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project.

Read More

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters
Woman typing on laptop at wooden table with breakfast.

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters

When the World goes Mad, one must accept Madness as Sanity, since Sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the Madness on which the Whole World happens to agree. (George Bernard Shaw)

Among the most prolific and famous playwrights of the 20th century, Shaw wrote “Pygmalion,” the play upon which “My Fair Lady” was based. Pygmalion was a Greek mythological figure, a sculptor from Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he created. Aphrodite turned his sculpture into a real woman, promoting the idea that the “created” is greater than the “creator.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
a sign with a question mark and a question mark drawn on it

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.

Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans, depression, and social anxiety. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less