Principles forabetter Children’s Internet
AUTHORS
MichaelDezuanni(QueenslandUniversityofTechnology)
AimeeHourigan(WesternSydneyUniversity)
AleeshaRodriguez(QueenslandUniversityofTechnology)
SUGGESTEDCITATION
Dezuanni,M.,Hourigan,A.,&Rodriguez,A.(2024).PrinciplesforabetterChildren’sInternet. AustralianResearchCouncilCentreofExcellencefortheDigitalChild,QueenslandUniversityof Technology.
DOI
http://doi.org/10.5204/rep.eprints.249349
KEYWORDS
Children’sInternet,digitalchildhood,childrights,politicaleconomy,digitalinclusion,public imaginaries,edtech,entertainment,regulation,digitalparticipation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/S
ThisdocumentwassupportedbytheAustralianResearchCouncilCentreofExcellenceforthe DigitalChild(grant#CE200100022).TheCentreandauthorsacknowledgetheFirstNations ownersofthelandsonwhichwegatherandpayourrespectstotheElders,lores,customs,and creationspiritsofthiscountry.ThisreportisanextensionoftheManifestoforabetter Children’sInternetproject,conductedwithJulianSefton-Green,TamaLeaver,AnnaBunn, AnnaPotter,RysFarthing,LuciPangrazio,KateMannell,KristyCorser,SueBennett,Amanda Levido,XinyuZhao,RebeccaNg,GuyHealy,andRebeccaWillett.
ReportGraphicDesignandIllustration:KiaraFourie
COPYRIGHT
Copyright©2024AustralianResearchCouncilCentreofExcellencefortheDigitalChild.Thisis anopen-accessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution4.0 InternationalLicense(CCBY4.0)
Introduction
TheInternethasenhancedchildren’slivesinmanywaysandwerecognisethatitwill continuetoplayanimportantroleastheymovethroughchildhood,intotheirteen yearsandadulthood.Onlineexperienceswillbecentraltohowtheylearn,thecareers theyundertake,andhowtheyexperienceeverydaylifethroughoutthe21stcentury.
Onlineexperiences,however,arenotalwayswelldesigned,wellregulated,orgoodfor children.Theyaresometimesexploitative,risky,andproblematic;theInternetwasnot createdwithchildren’sinterestsandneedsinmind.
InourManifestoforabetterChildren’sInternetweusethetermthe‘Children’s Internet’asaunifyingconcepttoremindusthatchildrenhavearighttoplayful, exploratory,fun,entertaining,positive,andeducationalexperiencesonline.The Children’sInternetismadeupofanarrayofdigitalproductsandservicesthatareboth intendedfor,andnotintendedfor,children.Werecognisenotallchildrenhavethe sameaccesstointernetexperiencesandpartofimprovingtheChildren’sInternetis addressingthedigitaldivide.
TheChildren’sInternetisanideathatcanbeusedbyindustry,government,educators, parentsandcarers,andvariousstakeholderstoreflectonhowdigitalproducts, services,andcontentarethoughtabout,madeavailable,designed,sold,regulated, managed,used,andinvitechildrentoparticipateonline.
Theprinciplesoutlinedinthisdocumentprovideclearguidanceonhowtocreatea betterChildren’sInternet.Whileeachprincipleaddressesaspecificneed,four overarchingactionsemergeacrosstheprinciples.Specifically,thedevelopmentof:
1)Standardsforhigh-qualitydigitalexperiencesforchildren
2)Slowdesignanddecision-makingprocessesdrivenbyconsultationwithchildren
3)Child-centredregulationandpolicy
4)Medialiteracypolicyandprograms
ThisgoalofabetterChildren’sInternetwillnotberealisedunlessthereisbroad agreementamongstadultsthatweneedtodomoretoensurethatchildrenhavefun, productive,safe,diverse,andethicalinternetexperiences.
Principle1:
Theavailabilityoffreeandhigh-quality Children’sInternetexperiences
Greater investment, both financially and culturally, is needed to develop societal and industry standards that ensure high quality and accessible internet experiences for all children across different digital products, services, and content.
Childrenhavearighttohigh-qualityInternetexperiencesthatareplayful,exploratory,fun, entertaining,positive,engaging,dynamic,safeandeducational.Inmovingtowardsabetter Children’sInternet,itisessentialthatweplacechildren’sinterests,capabilities,rights,and aspirationsatthecentreofourconsiderationsabouthowtocontinuetoimprovetheInternet.
ChildrenoftenhaveaccesstotheInternetviadirectpurchasesandsubscriptions.Asignificant numberoffamilies,however,cannotaffordtopayforaccesstoqualityChildren’sInternet productsandservicesandthereisasignificantriskthatsomechildrenwillmissout.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone:
Manynationalpubliclyownedbroadcasters,liketheAustralianBroadcastingCorporation (ABC),BritishBroadcastingCorporation(BBC),andtheGhanaBroadcastingCorporation (GBC),provideaccesstofreechildren’scontentandservices,andthismustcontinue. DesignWell,PlayWellisacollectiveoforganisationsandindividualswhoareworkingto ensurechildren’sdigitalexperiencesareactivelygood.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Incountrieswherefreeandhigh-qualityChildren’sInternetexperiencesaremadeavailable throughapublicbroadcaster,thismustbemaintainedandextended.
Mediaandtechnologycompaniesshouldinvestinhigh-qualitychildren’sproductsand servicesasanaspectoftheirsociallicencetooperate;thatis,theirsocialandcorporate responsibilitytocreatefun,productive,safe,diverse,andethicalinternetexperiences.
Mediaandtechnologycompaniesshouldbeencouragedtoavoidplacinghigh-quality Children’sInternetcontentandexperiencesbehindsubscriptionpaywalls.
Mediaandtechnologycompaniesneedtobeexplicitaboutwhatis‘free’andwhatcosts money.
Principle2:
Thedevelopmentofqualitystandards forage-appropriateentertainmentand educationalproductsandservicesforchildren
Rigorous standards of quality need to be developed to ensure the production of ‘made for kids’ products and services are age-appropriate, suitable, and relevant for children.
Currently,therearefewparametersforhowtojudgethequalityofdigitalproducts,services, andexperiencesthatare‘madeforkids’.Whilesomedigitalplatformshavesoughtto implementqualitystandards,tensionsoftenemergeinrelationtotheplatform’sexisting businessmodelsandcommercialimperatives,aswellasintheprocessesofmonitoringand evaluatingtheuptakeofthestandardsamongstindividualcreatorsorusers
Themultifacetedwaysinwhichchildrencanconsumecontent(throughofficial,unofficial,and fan-createdmediachannels)complicatesthelevelofimpliedorassuredqualitythatwould previouslyhavebeenassociatedwithspecific‘intellectualproperty’ortrustedproducts.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone:
YouTube’sBestpracticesforkids&familycontentguidelinesoutlinekeyprinciples relatingtotheproductionof‘high-quality’children’scontent thatis,“age-appropriate, enriching,engaging,andinspiring”media.
CommonSenseMediahavedevelopedaproprietary‘qualityrubric’toreviewmovies, books,televisionprograms,andgames,andusearatingsystemtoindicatethe appropriatenessofcontentforchildrenatdifferentagelevels CommonSenseMedia’s SensicalTVstreamingserviceprovideschildrenwithfree(advertisingsupported)video contentreviewedbychildren’sexperts.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Governments,industry,educatorsandresearchersmustworktogethertodeveloppublic consensusabouthigh-qualitychildren’sinternetproductsandexperiencesforchildrenof differentages.
Oncedeveloped,qualitystandardsshouldbeendorsedandwidelyimplementedwith transparencyandaccountability.
Fundingforthedevelopmentofchildren’sinternetproductsandservicesshouldbe alignedtoqualitystandards.
Technologyandmediacompaniesshouldpromoteandfavourendorsedproductsand experiences,forinstancewithinonlineAppstores.
Familiesshouldfeelconfidentthatendorsementisamarkerofqualityandintegrity.
Principle3: Cleareradviceandbettermechanisms
forage-appropriateaccessanduseof productsandservicesforchildrenandfamilies
There is a need to examine how current mechanisms to determine the age-appropriateness of products and services, such as age-gating, effectively inform and govern children’s internet experiences
Manydigitalproductsandservicesset13astheminimumageforusersoftheirmainadult-oriented services.Thisprocessisknownas‘age-gating’andisoftenmanagedthroughsign-upprocesses whereadateofbirthorcreditcarddetailsneedtobeenteredtocreateanaccount Digitalservices sometimesexplicitlyaskwhethertheuserisachildandrequestthatanadultsigns-upontheir behalf.
Weneedtoexplorenewavenuestoprovidechildrenandfamilieswiththetoolsandresourcesto ensuretheycanmakeinformeddecisionsaboutaccessingengagingandage-appropriatecontent. Achallengeisthatsofar,agegatesondigitalmediaforchildrenhavelackednuance-allchildren from0-12aretreatedthesame,asareyoungpeoplefrom13to18.Whilemechanismsfor identifyingusers’agescanbedifficultondigitalmediaplatformsandcurrentageestimation technologiesinvokeconcernsabouteffectivenessandprivacy,children’sinternetexperiences wouldbegreatlyenhancediftheyweremoreageappropriate
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
Inlate2022,RobloxannouncedthatitwouldintroduceExperienceGuidelines,whichinclude anin-gameageratingsystemthatprovidesinformationonthesuitabilityofgame experiencesforplayersatvariousages(withdifferentexperiencesavailabletoplayersunder 13,aged13-17,andforthoseaged17andolder)
TheAustralianeSafetyCommissioner’sRoadmapforageverificationdetails recommendations,includingacleareronlinesafetyregulatoryframeworkandeducational programmingalongsidetheintegrationofageassurancetechnologies,suchasmoderationand filtering,tohelpkeepchildrensafewhenaccessingcontentonline
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Amorenuancedandsophisticatedsetofguidelinesforage-appropriatenessforchildren’s digitalproductsandservicesshouldbedeveloped,withcategoriesforveryyoungchildren (0-4),youngerchildren(5-8),olderchildren(9-12),youngerteens(13-14)andolderteens (15-17).
Parentsshouldhaveaccesstofreeadviceabouttheageappropriatenessofdigital productsandservices,similartowhatcurrentlyexistsfortelevisionandfilm,particularlyto assistwithmakingdecisionsabouttheappropriatenessofcontentforchildrenaged0-12. Mediaandtechnologycompanies,ortheindustryasawhole,shoulddevelopnewand widelyshared,ethically-basedmechanismsforageverification,particularlyforage-gates at13,15and18.
Principle4:
Lessfocusonprotectingchildrenfrom thedigitalenvironmentandmorefocuson protectingthemwithinthedigitalenvironment
We need to move away from a deficit-based perspective when imagining children’s internet experiences and strive to reimagine a future where public, media, and policy discourses about children’s digital products and services champions their agency and positive futures.
Publicdiscourseandpolicyresponsestochildren’sinternetexperiencesover-emphasisekeeping childrenoutofonlineenvironments,oronlygrantingthemaccesstocertainpocketsoftheInternet andotherdigitalspaces Theseresponsesimaginethatsafeandage-appropriateexperiencesfor younguserscanonlybecreatedbyrestrictingchildren’saccesstogeneralfeaturesthroughagegatingmechanisms(keepingchildrenin),andshowcasingmediaandaestheticsthatwouldnot appealtoadultaudiences(keepingadultsout)
Buttheseblanketapproachesalsolimitchildren’saccesstoimportantinformation,meaningful connectionswithpeers,andmaynotequipchildrenwiththeresourcesandskillstodevelop‘online resilience’ Additionally,preventingchildrenfromaccessingthedigitalenvironmentisincreasingly challengingwhenconsideringthebreadthandvarietyofproductsandservicesthatchildren access.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
UNICEFhavedevelopedaframeworktoassiststakeholderstodesignandimplementmore targeted,engaging,educational,andresponsiveonlinesafetyinterventionsforchildren Byworkingdirectlywithchildren,researchersfromtheCentreofExcellencefortheDigital Child,EdithCowanUniversity,andtheLEGOGrouplearnedhowchildrenfromacrossIndia, Australia,andtheRepublicofKoreacontinuetolearnaboutthetypesofriskinvolvedinusing theinternetandalsohowtheydeveloptheskillsandunderstandingtomanagetheserisks, suchastheirabilitiestorespondtocyberbullying.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Whenlegislationandpolicyisbeingdevelopedthereneeds tobemoreemphasisonimprovingguardrailswithinthe digitalenvironmentratherthanexcludingchildrenfrom accesstothedigitalenvironment.
Policyshouldbechild-centredandfocusonchildrenand youngpeople'sperspectivesintheuseofdigitalmediain theirlives
Collectively,weneedtofocusonremovingthedeficit framingfrompublicconversationsaboutchildren'sdigital mediause,particularlywithineducationandnewsmedia narratives.
Principle5:
Accessibleconsumerinformation
forfamiliestoallowthemtomakeinformed choicesaboutdigitalproductsandservices forchildren
Technology providers, industry, and governments have a responsibility to ensure clear and transparent information about products and services is readily available and accessible for families and children.
Parentsandcarersfacemanychallengeswhenitcomestomakingdecisionsaboutwhat content,services,andproductstheirchildrencanaccessanduse.Thisincludesdecisions aboutwhatis‘suitable’or‘appropriate’(particularlyaboutproductsandservicesthatarenot specificallydesignedforchildren),aswellasdecisionsaboutwhatis‘necessary’forchildrento accesstoassistwitheducation,learning,anddevelopment
Parentsandcarersalsofacethechallengeofnavigatingthemanycostsassociatedwithusing differentdigitalproducts,whichisoftennotastraightforwardpurchase.Manyapps,for instance,canbedownloadedforfree,butthenpresentdifferenttiersofexperienceoraccessto resourcesthatmustbeearnedorpurchased
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
InAustralia,theNewSouthWalesDepartmentofEducationhasdevelopedasuiteof resourcesthatparentsandcarerscanfreelyaccesstobetterunderstandhowtosupport theirchildrentobecomeresilientdigitalcitizens
ProfessorSoniaLivingstone,aleadingadvocateforchildren’srightsinthedigitalage,has calledforbalancebetweenparentaldigitalliteracyandgreatertransparencyfromdigital serviceprovidersandproductdevelopers.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Publiclyfundedagenciesshouldcontinuetoexpandandupdatethedevelopmentof accessibleandwidelyavailableconsumerinformationforparents,carers,andeducators. Indevelopingarubricofqualitystandards,similartoaratingsystem,familieswillbe assistedtomakeinformeddecisionsonwhatdigitalcontent,services,andproductstheir childrenshouldaccessanduse.
Technologyprovidersshouldbemandatedtoprovidegreatertransparencyofanyin-game microtransactions(eg,lootboxes)andbusinessmodelssoconsumerscanmakemore informedchoices.
Digitalplatformsshoulddiligentlywarnchildrenandparentsaboutscamsandfinancially predatorybehaviourtargetingchildren.
Principle6:
Moreinvestmentinlocallyproduced,diverse, andhigh-qualityentertainmentandeducational productsandservicesforchildrenandfamilies
Public funding bodies, such as governments, should be called on to give greater financial priority to the production of nationally representative children’s content, while new processes and policies should be introduced to encourage strategic private investment into local and national media, particularly from global media production and technology companies.
Childrengainalotfromseeingthemselves,theirlives,andtheiraspirationsrepresentedinthe mediatheyconsumeandinteractwith.Atanationalorlocallevel,publicbroadcasters,suchas,in theAustraliancontext,theABCandSpecialBroadcastingService(SBS),subsequentlyhavea crucialroletoplayinshapingwhat‘quality’children’scontentlookslikeandhowchildren’s identitiesareportrayed‘onscreen’.
However,nationalpublicbroadcastersoftenhavenocodifiedobligationstochildrenandno mandatedlevelsofnationalcontent InAustralia,theABChasalsobeenknowntode-prioritise domesticcontentforchildreninlightofothercommercialpressures.Theseissuesarecompounded byinternationalstreamingservices,suchasDisney+andAmazonPrime,whichposeathreatto nationalrepresentationunlesstheyinvestinlocalproductionsthatprioritiselocalornationallyrepresentativechildren’scontent.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
Largemediaandtechnologycompanieshavebeguntoinvestinlocalproduction,forexample, Netflixannouncedin2023,ithadspentAU$500millionsince2019investinginchildren’s programminginAustralia.
AlthoughAustralianTVcontentforchildrenisincreasinglydisappearingfromcommercialand free-to-airnetworksinAustralia(withan84%dropincontentbetween2019and2022), researchfromSwinburneUniversityofTechnologyshowsthatmorethan80%ofAustralian parentsthinkit’sessentialfortheirchildrentoseelocalAustralian-madecontentonTV
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
TheABCshouldprovideminimumlevelsofAustralianchildren’stelevisioneachyearincluding genressuchasliveactiondramaanddocumentaries,evenifthesearehighcostandlowprofit ventures.
Streamersandcommercialbroadcastersshouldcontributetoafundthatsupportsthe provisionofculturallyvaluableandeducationalchildren’scontent Australianchildrenshouldbeabletofreelyaccesshigh-qualityagespecificformsofcontent suchasdramaproducedwithstatesubsidiesincludingtaxrebatesanddirectfunding. PolicymakersshouldrevisitthedefinitionofwhatconstitutesAustraliancontentunderthe SignificantAustralianContenttest,toguaranteethatcontentthatisbeingmadeunder AustraliancreativecontrolrepresentsandreflectsAustralianchildren’slives.
Principle7:
Thedevelopmentofproductsandservicesthat increaseaccessanduseofdigitaltechnologies forchildrenatriskofdigitalexclusion
Children’s access to quality internet experiences is uneven, due to the compounding impacts of differing socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic factors.
In2023,theAustralianDigitalInclusionIndexshowedthat,ofhouseholdswithlessthan AU$33,800incomeperyear,33%were‘highlyexcluded’withsignificantlylessinternetaccess thantheirmiddleclassneighboursandgreaterrestrictionsontheirinternetaccessthrough barrierssuchasdatacaps.
AboriginalandTorresStraitIslandpeoples,Australianswithdisability,lesseducated Australians,andthoselivinginruralandremotelocationswerealsofoundtobemorelikelyto bedigitallyexcluded.
Digitalexclusionalsoprecludeschildren’sabilitytoaccessqualityeducation.Astudy conductedbytheQueenslandStateGovernmentauditofficein2021demonstratedthat10%of studentsinthelowestincomebrackethadnoaccesstotheInternetathome,14%ofstudents hadnoaccesstoacomputer,laptop,ortablet,andanadditional16%hadlimitedaccess.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
The‘Advancingdigitalinclusioninlow-incomeAustralianfamilies’projecthighlights howeffortstoaddressdigitalinclusioninlow-incomefamiliesneedtobecollaborativeand sharedbetweenmulti-levelstakeholdersasdigitalinclusioniseverybody’sbusiness. TheGoodThingsFoundationhighlightshowcommunity-leddigitalinclusioninitiatives, alongsideanationalgovernmentstrategyandongoingservicesupport,canhelptoensure allAustralianshavetheskillsandresourcesneededtoparticipateinour(digital)society.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
TheAustralianfederalgovernmentshouldmandatethatalowcostandhigh-quality internetproducttoincreaseinternetaccess,bemadeavailabletolow-incomefamilies. InitiativessuchasOptus’datadonationscheme,inpartnershipwithcharityTheSmith Family,shouldbeextendedandintroducedbyotherinternetcompanies. Schoolsystemsshoulddevelopclearpoliciesandproceduresformeetingdigitally excludedstudents’needs.
Devicedonationschemesshouldbecoordinatedatthenationalleveltoenableefficient andpurposefulprovisionofrecycleddevicestolow-incomechildren
Principle8: Avoidingthetechentrepreneurialphilosophy of‘movefastandbreakthings’when developingproductsandservicesforchildren
The entrepreneurial motivation to rapidly innovate children’s products and services and disrupt markets, rather than meet real needs and present realities, is not compatible with a better Children's Internet
Thetechentrepreneurialvaluesdrivingthedevelopmentofchildren’sonlineproductsand serviceshingeonthenotionof‘movefastandbreakthings’;thatinnovationemergesby pushingproductsandservicestomarketquicklyanddisruptingexistingprocessesand technologiestogetaheadofthecurve
Thisisproblematicasitcreatesacultureof‘techno-solutionism’wheretechnologyissought outasthesolutiontoproblems,beforequestionsaboutwhatisbestforthatcontextareasked. IntermsoftheChildren’sInternet,thishasledtotherapiddevelopmentofchildren’sversions ofpopularsocialmediaplatforms(withvaryingdegreesofsuccess,asinthecaseof‘Instagram forKids’whichrecievedwidespreadopposition),andalsopermeatedintootherexperiences, suchaschildren’slearning(asinthecaseoftherisingEdTechindustry)
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
TheAustralianeSafetyCommissioner’sSafetybyDesignframeworkcallsontechnology companiesto‘movethoughtfully’;toproactivelyinvestinriskmitigationandtoembed considerationforuserprotectionandsafetyfromtheoffsetwhendevelopingdigital productsandservices.
Child-centredprinciples,suchasthosedevelopedaspartoftheDigitalFutures Commission’s‘ChildRightsbyDesign’toolkit,canhelpcreatedigitalproducts,services, content,andexperiencesforchildrenthathavetheirwell-being,interests,andrightsatthe core
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Thedevelopmentofregulatoryprocessesthatdisincentivisesthe‘movefast’approachand incentivisespracticesthatembeddueconsiderationwithinthedevelopmentofchildcentredproductsandservices.
Leadersinthetechindustryneedtomarshalacultureshiftintermsofcompaniesand organisationsprioritisingchildren’sbestinterestswhendevelopingdigitalproductsand servicesforthem;thisshiftincultureneedstoseechildren’sdigitalproductsandservices asapublicgoodandcentraltotechnologycompany’ssociallicencetooperate.
Regulationtomandateconsultationwithchildandyouthexpertssuchaschildren, families,educators,healthprofessionals,andabroadcross-sectionofacademicswhile developingdigitalproductsandservicesforchildren
Principle9: Timelyandappropriateconsultationwith childrenandfamilieswhenproductsand servicesarebeingdeveloped
Through collaborative models, such as co-design, children, their families, and their communities should be included as key stakeholders in the design, decision-making, and delivery of the Children’s Internet.
Fromachild’srightsapproach,children’svoices,perspectives,anddesiresshouldbeconsulted whendevelopingthedigitalproductsandservicesthey’llencounterthroughtheirinternet experiences.Engagingchildreninconsultationsallowsthemtoexpresstheirviewsandopinions aboutdigitalenvironments,andtooffermeaningfulinsightsintotheircurrentandaspireddigital practices,experiences,andbehaviours.
UNconventions,suchastheRightsoftheChildandGeneralCommentNo 25ontherightsofthe childinthedigitalenvironment,ratifytheobligationsthatallstakeholders,particularlystatesand commercialactors,havetoupholdchildren’srightstoparticipateascivilcitizensonline.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
ThePlayfulbyDesignframework,whichwasproducedinconsultationwithmorethan1000 childrenandyoungpeopleintheUK,offersevidence-basedrecommendationstothedesigners ofdigitalproductsandservicesthataimtoimprovechildren’sopportunitiesfor‘freeplay’in thedigitalenvironment.
TheResponsibleInnovationinTechnologyforChildrenproject acollaborationbetween researchersfromWesternSydneyUniversity,UNICEFInnocenti,andtheLEGOGroup collated thedigitalwellbeingexperiencesofmorethan300childrenfrom13countriestocreatea frameworktopromptgovernmentsandindustrytoputchildren’swellbeingfirstwhen designingandevaluatingdigitalexperiences
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Decision-makingpracticesthatpertaintochild-centred policyanddesignneedinvolvechildren,carers, families,educatorsandexpertsintheprocess. Regulatoryguidelinesshouldbedevelopedtooverse whenandhowconsultationwithchildrenisappropr whendesigningdigitalproductsandservices.
Effortsoughttobemadebyleadersinthetechindus tosupportandencourageearlyconsultationandcodesignpracticeswithchildrenandfamilies,andmov awayfromviewingchildrenastestmarketsofprodu andservices.
Principle10: Schoolsandeducationsystemstodevelopbetter
processesforselectingdigitalresourcesfor classroomuse
Clear processes need to be in place to understand who makes decisions about what technologies are made available in schools, for what resasons, and how they are used both within and outside the classroom.
The‘bigthree’EdTechcompanies(Apple,Microsoft,andGoogle)activelymarketthemselvesto educatorsandadministratorsusingarangeofsophisticatedtechniques.Themediationof learningthroughthiscommerciallayerhasadirectimpactonthepurchasesmadebyboth schoolsandfamilies.
Parentsandcarerswhodonotwanttheirchildrentobe‘leftbehind’arefacedwithchoices thatmayhavesignificantimpactsontheirfamilybudget,particularlyininstanceswherethey feelpressuredtopurchasetechnologythatisdeemed‘necessary’forchildren’slearningand development.Thereisalsooftenamismatchbetweentheclaimsmadebytechnology developersandtheactualimpactsofeducationaltechnologyonlearningandeducation
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
TheOECDisactivelymonitoringhow,globally,governmentsareincreasinglyallowedto makegreaterdecisionsaboutwhichdigitaltoolsandresourcesshouldbeprovidedor procuredbyschools,teachers,andlearnerswithlittletransparency
TheElectronicFrontierFoundationisseekingtoholdeducationsystemsandgovernments toaccount,asitsaysstudentsandtheirparentsareoftenleftinthedarkwhenitcomes tounderstandingwhycertaindecisionsregardingclassroomtechnologyaremade,and further,littleclarityisgivenastohowdataandprivacyprotectionsareinplaceonthese devices
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Educationsystemsandschoolsshouldlookbeyondmarketingandhypewhenselecting andpurchasingdigitalresourcesforclassroomuse. Oncequalitystandardsareestablished,acentralisedreviewprocessshouldbeestablished byeducationsystemstoregularlyassessandrecommenddigitalresourcestoschoolsand parents
The‘bigthree’EdTechcompaniesshouldfocuslessonmarketingandhype,andmoreon researchabouthowtechnologycanmosteffectivelybeusedtosupportlearning,andhow teacherscanbesupportedtodevelopknowledgeandskills.
Principle11: Schoolandeducationsystemstobeas technologyagnosticaspossible
School and education systems need to more greatly consider the impact of over-aligning themselves with specific technological ecosystems (such as being ‘either an Apple or Google school’).
Globaltechnologybrands,suchasMicrosoft,Google,andApple,oftenhaveadominatingpresence inschoolsduetodirectcontractingorpreferredsupplierstatus.Theconsequenceofthese arrangementsisthatsignificantpowerrestsinthehandsofstate,district,orschoolauthoritiesin termsofwhichtechnologyecosystemsarefavouredandsupported.
Thereispotentialforstudentlearningtobeimpactedbythesedecisionsaschoicesaboutpreferred orfamiliartechnologyaretakenawayfromindividualusersorfamilies,andfamiliesmayhavea directconflictwithschooldecisions;familiesmaybean‘Applefamily’buttheirchildrenmay attenda‘Googleschool’.Inaddition,placingatechnologicalsystematthecentreoflearning, ratherthanintheserviceoflearning,hasthepotentialtolimitteacherpedagogiesandstudent learning
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
OngoingadvocacyworkbyTheSmithFamilyhighlightshowaone-size-fits-alltechdistributionmodelisn’tenough,particularlyintermsofsupportingthedigitalskills developmentandinclusionofchildrenandyoungpeoplewhoarevulnerable,marginalised,or excluded.
SomeAustralianStateeducationsystemsallowgreaterchoiceaboutthetechnologythatcan beusedintheirschools,placinglessemphasisoncentraliseddecisionmakingandmoreon school,teacherandstudentchoice.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Educationsystemsandschoolsshouldplace lessemphasisonspecifictechnological ecosystemsandshouldplantoenable multiplekindsofdevicestobeusedona schoolnetwork
Whendevelopingrelationshipswitheducation systemsandschools,technologycompanies shouldfocuslessonsalesandmoreon genuinelearningoutcomes.
Teachersshouldbecomeadaptabletoa varietyoftechnologiesbeingusedintheir classrooms.
Principle12: Betterqualitycontrolofproductsandservices thatarelabelledas‘educational’withinthe majorappstores
Greater quality control mechanisms are needed within the major app stores to prevent ‘educational’ apps from making inaccurate, exaggerated, or dubious claims about their learning or educational potential.
Recommendationsmadebytheappstoresthroughdirectadvertisingorviasearchresultsdo notalwaysguaranteequality.Forinstance,some‘educational’appspromotedwithintheapp storehavebeenfoundtobehighlymisleadingabouttheireducationalvalueandmotivated primarilybyfinancialgain.
Many‘educational’appsarealsostructuredasgamesorhaveagamingcomponent,with developersseekingtoproducehigh-qualityeducationalexperiencesthataresimultaneously funtoplay.Whiletheseappsmaykeepchildrenengaged(throughvisuallystimulatingdesign features,colourpalettes,andtask-basedrewards)theymayhavelimitedornoverified educationalvalue
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
AspartofGoogle’sTeacherApprovedprogram,teachers,children’seducation specialists,andmediaexpertsevaluateappsaccordingtoasetofspecificcriteriato determinewhethertheyaresuitabletobepromotedashigh-qualityappsforkidsinthe GooglePlayStore.
AswithotherformsofEdTech,thepedagogythatsurroundslearningoreducational appscanhaveagreaterimpactonstudent’sorchildren’slearningoutcomesthanthe contentoruseoftheappitself;forinstance,throughrichandcriticaldiscussionsasaclass, orthroughthesocialandcollaborativelearningthatcantakeplacearounddigitalgames.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
‘Educational’orlearning-basedappsshouldbeassessedagainstagreedqualitystandards whenbeingapprovedforinclusionwithinAppStores.
Majortechnologycompaniesshouldworkwithintheguidelinesoftheirsociallicenceto operatewhenprofitingfromthedistributionofeducationalproductsandservicesfor children
Thesecompaniesshouldrewardandpromotedevelopersthatadheretoqualitystandards whendevelopingeducationalproductsforchildren.
Theyshouldalsohighlightandpromotethoseproductsandservicesthatbestadhereto qualitystandards.
Principle13: Regulationthatstrikesafairbalancebetween
governmentpolicy,technologycompany policies,andpersonalresponsibility
To build a better Children’s Internet requires input and responsiveness from government, industry, families, and wider society; there needs to be fair and equitable responsibility from all stakeholders.
Theobjectivesofinternationalagenciesandnationalandstate-basedgovernmentsare influentialinshapingchildren’sinternetexperiences,asarethecorporateandcommercial objectivesoftechnologycompanies Substantialweightingisalsogiventoparentsandfamilies who,oftenbydefault,havetomakekeydecisionsaboutregulatingchildren’sinternet experiences Yet,theresponsibilitytokeepchildrensafeonlinedoesnot,andshouldnot,solely liewithparents.
Ensuringbalancedregulatoryandpolicyresponsibilityamongstallstakeholderswillplaya significantroleincreatingabetterChildren’sInternet,notonlydefiningandshapingpositive internetexperiencesforchildren,butfurtherreproducingidealsabouthowchildrenshould experiencedigitalproducts,services,andcontent.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
LegislativedevelopmentsintheUK,suchastheInformationCommissioner’sOffice’s Age-AppropriateDesignCode,areresultingingreaterregulatoryresponsibilitiesbeing placedonbusinessesandorganisationswhosedigitalproductsandservicesarelikelytobe accessedbychildren,particularlywithregardtodatacollection.
Meta’sBestInterestsoftheChildFrameworkdrawsontheUN’sConventiononthe RightsoftheChildtoassistproductdevelopmentteamstocentrechildren’srightswithin productdesign,evaluation,andimplementation
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
AgovernmentmechanismsuchasaParliamentaryCommitteeshouldbeestablishedto investigatetheroleofgovernmentincreatingtheconditionsforabetterChildren’s Internet;recognisingtherelationshipsbetweenfundingmodels,qualitystandards,ageappropriatedesignandconsultation,andmedialiteracy. Governmentregulationandtechnologycompanypolicyshouldnotplacetheburdenof responsibilityprimarilyonparentstomanagechildren’sdigitalexperiences. Technologycompaniesshouldbeheldaccountablebygovernment,themedia,andthe publictoliveuptotheirsociallicensetooperate;thatis,theirsocialandcorporate responsibilitytocreatefun,productive,safe,diverse,andethicalinternetexperiences.
Principle14:
Amoveawayfromtheover-relianceon‘parental controls’asthesolutiontomanagingor improvingchildren’sonlineexperiences
The current over-reliance on ‘parental controls’ places too much emphasis on parents’ practices as a means of creating safe internet experiences for children.
Responsibleadultsarerequiredtospendconsiderabletimeandeffortmanagingtheirchildren’s digitalaccounts.Itisnotunusualfortheparentsofadigitallyconnectedchildtohaveto simultaneouslymanagetheaccountandusersettingsofseveraldigitalservicesandexperiences.
Technologycompaniesoverwhelminglyrelyonthislabouraspartoftheirjustificationformaking productsandexperiencesavailabletochildren.Theyalsorelyonthisparentallabourto significantlyreducethecostsassociatedwithdirectmoderationandmoreadvancedtechnological solutionsanddesignfeaturesthatmaymakechildren’sexperiencesmoreprivate,safe,and enjoyable.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
IntheUS,technologycompaniessuchasMeta,TikTok,andSnapInc.,areunderpressure fromlocalandfederalgoverningbodiestoimplementnewtoolsandlegislationtoprotect childrenfromonlineharms,inparticular,exploitationorharassmentviasocialmedia.
RecentrecommendationsmadebytheNationalAcademiesofSciences,Engineering,and Medicineadvocateforongoingconsultationamongstinternationalregulatorybodiesto developstandardsandpoliciesthatpromptmoreconsistentandaccountablesocialmedia platformdesign,transparency,anddatause
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Mediaandtechnologyproductsandservicesfor childrenshouldadhereto‘safetybydesign’ principlesandnegatetheneedforparentalcontrols. Wheretheyarenecessary,parentalcontrolsshould bedesignedtobeeasytouseandthereforeshould bedesignedforconsistencyacrossplatformsand experiences.
Mediaandtechnologycompaniesshouldinvestigate thedevelopmentofacross-platformand interoperableparentalcontrolsinglesign-inanduse mechanism.Thiscouldoperateakintoapassword managertohelpsimplifytheprocessofmanaging parentalcontrols
Principle15: Fulltransparencyandminimisationofdata beingcollectedfromchildren;andavoidingthe
commercialisationofchildren’sdata
Technology companies and digital platforms should minimise the collection of data generated online from children (and about children) and further find more effective ways to avoid the commercialisation of children’s data
Datageneratedfromchildren’suseofdigitalproductsandservicescanbecollected,used,and soldbyindividualsandcompanies,oftencovertly,forcommercialpurposes.Dataprotection rulesregardingchildren’sdataarecreatedtodiscourageandstopthesecollectionand commercialisationpractices Asdatahasthepotentialtobepermanent,concernsregarding children’sprivacyandtheiragencytoconsenttowhat‘digitaltraces’theychoosetoleave behindareparticularlyimportant
Theseconcernsaboutdataflowintolargerissuespertainingtochildren'ssafety,as participationonlinecansometimesbeporousandlimitless,asdigitalplatformscanlinkto externalwebsites.Additionally,parents,families,andschoolscanalsoinadvertentlygenerate dataandidentifiableinformationaboutchildren,raisingimportantquestionsabouthowto balancechildren’srightstoprivacywithotherrightsandinterests.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
InEurope,theGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR)recognisesthatchildren deservespecificprotectioninrelationtotheirpersonaldata HumanRightsWatchrecentlyreviewed164EdTechproductsusedinschoolsworldwide duringtheCOVID-19schoolclosuresandfoundthat89%oftheseappearedtoengagein datapracticesthatputchildren’sdataatrisk.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
AnOnlinePrivacyCodeshouldbedevelopedbyagovernmentregulator,inconsultationwith childrenandotherstakeholders;thiscodeshouldapplytoonlineserviceslikelytobeaccessed bychildrenandshouldpromotethebestinterestsofchildusersby,forexample,takinga precautionaryapproachtothecollectionanduseofchildren’sdata.
Technologycompaniesshouldbelegallyrequiredtotakeintoaccountthebestinterestsofthe childandonlycollect,useanddiscloseinformationwhenitisfairandreasonabletodoso.
Technologycompaniesshouldberequiredbylawtonottradeinchildren’spersonal informationandshouldavoidtargetingchildrenordirectmarketingtothemunlessitisinthe child’sbestinterests.
Principle16: Legislationtoensuretherecognitionand protectionofchildren’sdigitallabour
Developing enshrined regulatory frameworks and guidance across local, national, and international contexts is essential to support children to engage in digital practices and to have safe online experiences without fear of exploitation, over-commercialisation, or coercion.
Childrenengageindigitallabourwhentheyareonline,rangingfrompassiveinteractionswith digitalplatformssuchasviewingcontent(whichgeneratesdatathatcanbecommercialised), tocreatingcontentandexperiencesforotherchildren,andparticipatinginbranddealsasa childinfluencer Asmoreandmoreyoungpeopleaspiretohaveacareerasacontentcreator, questionsaroundlabour howmuchayoungpersoncanandshould‘work’increatingcontent andquestionsaroundprivacy bothnowandinthefuture frequentlyarise.
Ofsimilarconcernishowtechnologycompaniesmonetisechildren’sandfamilies’digital participation Thedigitaloronlineenvironmentswherechildrenhangoutincreasinglydepend onuserparticipationforthedevelopmentofcontentandexperiences,oronthesaleofuser datatocommercialthirdpartiessuchasadvertisers.
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
Francewasthefirstcountrytointroducelegislationtoprotecttherightsofchild influencers,withthe‘childYouTuberlaw’requiringproducersorcontentcreatorstogain officialauthorisationtoproducecontentfeaturingminorsunder16yearsofage.
Internetstudiesscholar,ProfessorTamaLeaver,hasspokenoutonAustralia’slackof regulationsurroundingchildren’slabouronline,particularlyinrelationtogovernments’ failingtodistinguishthenuancesofchildren’slabourandtheirplayonline
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Specificlegislationneedstobedevelopedtoprotectchildren’sdigitallabourand participationonline
Technologycompaniesneedtobemorevigilantonhowtheymoderatecontentfeaturing childrenand/ormadebychildren
Policymakersandeducatorsneedtodevelopmorenuancedperspectivesaboutchildren’s onlineparticipationandrecognisethatdigitalplayandmediamakingisproductiveand importantforthedevelopmentofdigitalliteracies.
Principle17:
Thepromotionofmedialiteracytosupport children’sfun,productive,safe,diverseand ethicalinternetexperiences
Media literacy allows children and adults alike to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to critically reflect on and build productive internet experiences.
Medialiteracyincludestheabilitytosuccessfullyuseandmakemediaforanarrayofpurposes. Importantly,medialiteracyisnotjustaprocessofcritiquingthemedia,butitalsoinvolves understandinghowmediacanbeusedtoimprovesociety,forinstancethroughsupporting activedigitalcitizenship.
Onewaytoframemedialiteracyistoconsiderhowitreliesonthedevelopmentanduseof material,social,andculturalresourcesacrossfour‘buildingblocks’;namely,digitalmaterials, conceptualunderstandings,mediaproduction,andmediaanalysis.
Medialiteracyisalife-longpursuitandisnotsomethingthatcanbeattainedasasingularset of‘skills’becausethemediaconstantlyevolves,particularlyindigitalcontexts.Boththe creationofmediaandmediaanalysisreliesoncontinuallearning
Examplesofwhatisbeingdone
TheAustralianMediaLiteracyAllianceandSBSLearnandtheAustralianBroadcasting Corporationhaveproduceddigitalresourcestohelpempowerandequipyoungpeople withcriticalmediaskills
MediaArts,whichpromotesmedialiteracylearning,isavailableasasubjectwithinthe AustralianCurriculum.
Whatmoreneedstobedone?
Inadditiontothedevelopmentofmedialiteracy curricula,targetedmedialiteracyresourcesshould developedforschools,andteachersneedtobepro withprofessionallearningtosupportthe implementationofmedialiteracyacrossthecurricu Parentsandcarersofyoungchildrenshouldbe supportedtounderstandhowmedialiteracyrelate parentingandthemanagementofdigitaltechnolog thehome.
Communityorganisations,includinglibraries,shou integratemedialiteracyintotheirprogramming.
Otherresources&examples
TheFairPlayAlliance’s‘DigitalThriving’projectcampaignsforthedesignofonline spacesandgamesthathelpindividualsandcommunitiestotrulythriveandtofoster feelingsandexperiencesofbelonging,well-being,andconnectedness.
TheAlannah&MadelineFoundation’seSmartMediaLiteracyLabisafreeresource availableforallschoolstouseandaccesstoencouragestudentstoreflectontheironline mediapracticesandbehaviours.
TheUSstateofIllinoishasrecentlyadoptedthecountry’sfirstlawprotectingchild influencers;alawwhichseesaportionofanyearningsfromonlinevideosofachild includingthe“likeness,name,orphotographoftheminor”putintoatrustforthemto accessuponadulthood.
The5RightsFoundation,aleadingglobaladvocateforchildren’srightsinthedigital world,workedtocreatethe‘AgeAppropriateDesignCode’(or‘theChildren’sCode’)as theworld’sfirststatutorycodeofpracticeforchildren’sdata.
Child-centredresearchadvocatescallforthedevelopmentofcontentevaluationsystems thatincorporatefactorsofusercompetenceandexperiencealongside‘contentrisks’(like violenceorextremelanguage),whenconsideringtheageappropriatenessofdigital contentforchildren.
Child-centredresearchadvocatesalsochampiontheinvolvementofchildrenasactive stakeholderswithinanyresearchordesignpracticesthatconcernthem
IndustryleadersinGenerativeAIhavecalledforgreaterprudencyfromindustryand governmentwhenitcomestothedevelopmentandregulationofemergingtechnologies, particularlyintermsofamoreconsideredandtargetedapproachtoriskmonitoringand usersafety.
Publiclibrariesareastrongsourceofsupportforinformationaboutdigitaltechnologies. Somelibrariesprovidedigitalresourcestohelpparentsunderstandhowtokeeptheir childrensafeonline,whileothersmayhelpparentsandchildrenexperiencedifferent technologies,suchascomputers,gamingconsoles,andVRheadsets.
TheAustralianeSafetyCommissioneradvocatesforthreestrategiesthatparentscanuse tohelptheirchildrenadoptsafepracticesandbehavioursonline.
Screenandproductionbodiesfromacrosstheglobe,includingAustralia,havejoined togethertocallongovernmentstoimplementregulationsthatensurestreaming servicesinvestinlocalproductions.
TheAustralianGovernmentannouncedthatitwouldintroducecontentquotasfor streamingplatformsfrommid-2024,althoughdetailsastowhatthesequotaswouldlook likehaveyettobefinalised.
InEurope,undertheAudiovisualMediaServicesDirective,streamingservicesare obligatedtoreinvestapercentageoftheirlocalrevenueintolocalproductions,andmust haveapercentagequotaofEuropeancontentwithintheirstreamingcatalogues.
TheGovernmentofZimbabweconsultedmorethan450youngpeopleagedbetween12 and17whilstdraftingthe‘ChildOnlineProtectionPolicy’
TheDigitalFuturesforChildren‘sImpactofregulationonchildren’sdigitallives researchreportprovidesevidenceaboutwhetherlegislationandregulationareeffectivein protectingchildren
