This chapter explores the key challenges that a whole-of-government policy approach must address to strengthen children's safety in the digital environment and equip them (and their caregivers) to navigate its various spaces responsibly. It highlights the need to: (i) establish effective regulatory frameworks and foster the development of technologies and services that prioritise child safety; (ii) enhance digital literacy and skills among children, with schools and teachers playing a crucial role in empowering them; (iii) provide guidance for parents and caregivers to help them navigate the benefits and risks of children's digital engagement; and (iv) incorporate children's perspectives and experiences into policy design to ensure their needs are accurately understood and that support measures are effectively implemented.
How's Life for Children in the Digital Age?
Abstract
Digital technologies are rapidly transforming how children and adolescents learn, play, interact with others. The growing accessibility, portability, and affordability of digital tools, along with their portability and affordability, have made them an integral part of children’s lives, even for the youngest age groups. In response, ensuring that digital policies for children are both effective and fit for purpose has become a key priority in most OECD countries. These efforts focus on protecting children, empowering them, and promoting their active participation in the digital environment through comprehensive national laws, regulations, and policies. Significant new policy developments are occurring at the national level, including the creation of integrative frameworks addressing various child-related digital topics (Better Internet for Kids, 2024[1]; OECD, 2024[2]; 2024[3])
Significant policy developments take place in OECD countries to strengthen children’s online safety and protection, foster digital education of children and adults, as well as to address issues such as cyberbullying, misinformation, disinformation, and protect the privacy of children's data online (Box 5.1; OECD (2024[3])). The focus of these policies varies across countries, as does their cross-cutting nature. In some countries, children and the digital environment are addressed within broader frameworks, such as a national digital strategy, rather than through separate, dedicated policies. Furthermore, not all aspects of protection, empowerment, participation, and well-being may be comprehensively addressed.
To support countries in developing these policies, the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment outlines principles to guide governments in designing frameworks that safeguard children, empower them, promote their well-being, and encourage active participation in the digital world while mitigating associated risks (OECD, 2021[4]; 2022[5]). It recommends adopting a whole-of-society effort to leverage the expertise of various stakeholders – including digital service providers, academics, health professionals, educators, child development experts, parents and children themselves. It also calls for a strong multilateral commitment and a whole-of-government approach to ensure that government actions are coordinated and mutually reinforcing, rather than fragmented, stand-alone, or potentially inconsistent efforts.
The Recommendation recognises key actors – such as governments, digital service providers,1 parents, carers, guardians, and children – who play an active role in shaping policies, practices, and services for children in the digital environment. Empowering these actors to create a safer and beneficial digital environment for children, as stipulated in the Recommendation, highlights the need for strengthened actions in four key areas: (i) the implementation of effective regulatory frameworks and the development of technologies and services that prioritise child well-being, with particular attention to the potential impact of digital technologies on children’s physical health, mental health, and developmental outcomes; (ii) promoting digital literacy and skills among children, emphasising the important role of schools and teachers in empowering children in the digital space and educating them about the benefits and risks of digital technologies; (iii) providing guidance to parents and educators to better understand and manage the benefits and risks to child well-being associated with excessive use or misuse of digital devices; (iv) enhancing cooperation among stakeholders, including children, whose views and experiences in navigating the digital world are critical to designing effective support measures. The overarching goal is to foster a secure online environment where children can benefit from digital opportunities while minimising risks. The Recommendation recognises the essential role played by digital service providers in fostering such an environment.
Building on the Recommendation and drawing from the latest literature and empirical evidence reviewed in the preceding chapters, this chapter delves deeper into the challenges of establishing an institutional framework that fosters a culture of safety and well-being in the digital environment. It highlights the need for better regulations and increased cross-sectoral government action, particularly in light of the widespread use of social media by children, advancements in technology, including artificial intelligence, and immersive experiences that offer greater opportunities but also may expose children to heightened risks. It emphasises the need for more effective measures to prevent an undue burden on parents and children in ensuring protection and fostering healthy digital practices. It also underscores the need for clearer guidance to assist educators, parents, and caregivers in supporting children as they manage their time and content with digital technologies, develop their digital skills, and express the desire for protection and support without being excluded from specific areas of the digital environment, such as social media. These efforts should be grounded in evidence, drawing on research findings and the expertise of educators, health professionals, and parents, who offer crucial insights into recognising children’s vulnerabilities and suggesting strategies to address harm or practices that jeopardise their well-being.
An important takeaway from the literature review in the previous chapter is that the impact of different uses of digital devices on children’s well-being largely depends on factors – either protective or those that create vulnerabilities – that often originate from offline environments. For example, adolescents who have been previously victimised or have mental health issues are at a higher risk of negative interactions online, such as bullying and exposure to harmful content (Odgers and Jensen, 2020[6]). Offline resources also matter, as youth from low-income backgrounds may experience a greater negative impact from online issues in their offline lives. In contrast, adolescents from higher socio-economic environments often have better online experiences, receive more guidance from adults and use the Internet more for informational and social purposes and less for entertainment and playful reasons (Cino et al., 2022[7]; Mascheroni and Olafsson, 2014[8]). Children with stronger social friendships offline are less likely to develop problematic use of social media (Lee, 2009[9]; Benvenuti et al., 2023[10]; Schneider, Amichai-Hamburger and Lonigro, 2020[11]). One consequence of this is that children's online risk often mirrors offline vulnerabilities.
The intertwined nature of children’s lives in the digital and physical realms underscores the need, as highlighted in Chapter 2, to understand the interplay between personal factors and those in children’s offline environments. These factors can either encourage problematic use of digital tools and services or, conversely, foster the development of skills needed to navigate the digital world with confidence and resilience in the face of negative online experiences. Addressing this requires collaboration among stakeholders, including digital service providers, parents, guardians, carers, educators, children themselves (OECD, 2021[4]), as well as professionals in the health, mental health, education, and child development sectors (Holly et al., 2023[12]). Coordinating perspectives from these diverse groups is key to building a shared understanding of needs and challenges, while promoting cooperation across traditional policy boundaries (OECD, 2021[4]; Dirwan and Thévenon, 2023[13]). Establishing such collaboration is also essential for designing digital services that protect children while meeting their needs, as well as those of educators, parents, and caregivers who support them. Equally important is preparing children for safe and constructive use of digital services and preventing potential problems arising from online risks or vulnerabilities rooted in the offline world.2
This chapter discusses how policies across four key pillars of an integrated approach are, or could be, implemented to address challenges related to child well-being. Consistently with the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment (OECD, 2021[4]), it begins by highlighting the critical role of legal and governmental policy frameworks in defining the responsibilities of Digital Service Providers for providing and safe and beneficial digital environment for children. The chapter then explores how teachers, schools, and the broader education system, along with parents, caregivers, and the active involvement of children, can contribute to designing digital services that align with children’s needs and rights. Lastly, it highlights the challenges of providing support within children’s living environments to empower children, address vulnerabilities, and promote healthy practices in the digital environment.
Many OECD countries have implemented plans or initiatives to protect children online and equip them with the skills needed to navigate the digital world. Policies on safe digital protection include Germany’s amended Youth Protection Act (Jugendschutzgesetz, JuSchG), Ireland’s Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 and Coimisiún na Meán’s work programme, and various laws in France aimed at combating school bullying, regulating the exploitation of children’s images, and enhancing parental controls, Hungary’s Digital Child Protection Strategy. Countries such as Latvia and Lithuania have developed digital literacy programmes for younger and older people from marginalised communities (delivered by youth and senior organisations) to support both integration into the labour market and broader social cohesion (OECD, 2022[14]).
In many countries Ministries of Education have a leading role in implementing actions to support the digital transformation in education and enhance children’s literacy. It includes, for instance, the Austria’s Acht-Punkte-Plan (Eight-Point-Plan/Strategy for a Digital School), Italy’s National Plan for Digital Education (PNSD), Ireland’s Digital Strategy for Schools, the Slovenian Digital Education Action Plan 2027, or Spain’s National Plan for Digital Skills. In Italy, the Ministry of Education is also the coordinator of the Safer Internet Centre, which develops an annual work programme involving ministries and authorities to promote a better Internet for children which includes key performance indicators. improving access to high-quality digital teaching material. In Ireland, the Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027 is a comprehensive initiative designed to empower students to become confident and competent digital learners, critically engaged and capable of participating as global citizens in an increasingly digital world. Additionally, the Department of Education introduced the Keeping Childhood Smartphone Free policy, which serves as a guide for parents and parents' associations to discuss Internet safety and smartphone access for primary school children with their school community. In Québec (Canada), the Ministry of Education has developed a Digital Competency Framework to help education stakeholders foster digital skills. The website, competencenumerique.ca was developed in relation to the Digital Reference Framework as a resource to help individuals develop digital competences.
Significant efforts are being made to address and prevent cyberbullying. For example, in Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Education from 2021 has implemented a Policy/Program Memorandum on Bullying Prevention and Intervention. A framework was established for school boards to encourage anti-bullying and cyberbullying measures, with funding allocated to initiatives offering targeted support for student groups at higher risk of victimisation. In France, the CyberNAH programme was developed with the mission of combatting cyberbullying. Measures include digital monitoring to anticipate viral cases of cyberbullying and strengthening capacities of schools to manage cyberbullying cases among others. The pHARe plan, adopted in 2023, bolsters the global fight against bullying in schools, both in person and online. In the French community of Belgium, a school climate observatory was established to monitor and provide schools with resources to improve the school climate and reduce (cyber)bullying, and a reference program was created for schools to address (cyber)bullying. In Greece, the "Living in Harmony Together – Breaking the Silence" regulations were introduced to prevent and deal with violence and bullying in schools. In Luxembourg, the Bee Secure programme co-ordinates a number of measures to combat cyberbullying including campaigns, classroom interventions, a helpline and a stop line.
Governments are also concerned with combating mis- and disinformation and datafication (OECD, 2024[2]). For instance, in Estonia, there are concerns about youth radicalisation and polarisation, highlighting the need for critical thinking skills to recognise fake information. The lack of awareness of parents and children about the consequences of datafication – i.e. the process of converting various aspects of life into digital data – is also a concern. In Iceland, the Icelandic Media Commission has led efforts to raise awareness about misinformation and disinformation, identifying young people aged 15-17 as the least critical of online information. Similarly, in Sweden, the National Agency for Education found that students need more support to develop a critical perspective on online messaging and information. In Israel, there are concerns that children may inadvertently share information about themselves or others that could endanger them.
Source: Better Internet for Kids (2024[1]), Policy Monitor Report 2024, https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/bikmap and OECD (2024[2]), What Does Child Empowerment Mean Today?: Implications for Education and Well-being, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f80ce38-en.
The digital environment is complex and fast moving, and the responsibility for delivering a safe and beneficial digital environment for children primarily lies with the digital service providers who design and deliver the digital spaces children use, and with governments who set policies and practices that can both empower and protect children (OECD, 2021[4]; 2022[5]). In this space, governments play a pivotal role in protecting children in the digital world (OECD, 2021[4]). Their primary responsibility is to establish regulations and standards that Digital Service Providers must comply with. Additionally, they can incentivise the integration of protective measures into the design of digital services and devices (OECD, 2024[3]). These efforts are crucial to ensure that the responsibility for protecting children in the digital environment does not fall on children, their caregivers and educators.
Establishing legal and governance frameworks that oversee access to digital tools, platforms and applications, as well as safeguarding privacy rights and outlining appropriate actions in case of misconduct, is essential for ensuring fundamental safety in the digital realm. This is particularly important for children, who often lack experience and awareness of the risks present in both offline and online environments. Creating such a foundation aligns with the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment, which emphasises coherent policy, enforceable legal measures, and evidence-based responses for a safe and beneficial digital environment for children, as well as the broader Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework (OECD, 2020[15]), which provides a holistic approach for designing and implementing digital policies in a holistic way, including with respect to children.
Legal frameworks establish an important basic set of obligations for protecting children and addressing the harms they can experience in the digital realm. Additionally, legal provisions can help promote responsible business practices by defining the circumstances under which Digital Service Providers can be held accountable for illegal activities or harmful information originating from third parties using their digital services. These provisions are also essential for setting obligations regarding data privacy protection, developing functionalities that help children and their caregivers protect against harm, and ensuring that solutions are developed to meet their needs (Livingstone, Lievens and Carr, 2020[16]). Equally important is tracking how consistently these providers apply technological tools to help parents protect their children (e.g. content information, pins, scheduling, etc.).
An overview of initiatives in this area highlights that during the 2010s, legislative responses to child safety concerns in the digital realm were diverse. Laws are often tailored to address specific risks, and oversight responsibilities are delegated to relevant ministries or departments, mirroring their offline counterparts (OECD, 2020[17]). However, as underlined in this report, this approach compartmentalises issues into separate disciplinary domains, overlooking the interdisciplinary nature of digital challenges. For example, the issues of sexting and cyberbullying imply a response from justice, health, and education (at a minimum) and impact on children’s privacy rights. By keeping legislative responses separate, there is a risk of duplicating efforts, leaving gaps in coverage, and reducing effectiveness due to unaddressed issues. Some countries have responded by establishing unified oversight bodies to address digital risks more cohesively, but challenges persist due to fragmented policy actions and sectoral approaches, resulting in disjointed responses and potential oversights (OECD, 2020[17]).
Strengthening the governance structure is also an important challenge. Despite a recognised commitment to shared responsibility among stakeholders, including industry and civil society, dedicated multi-stakeholder bodies are rare (OECD, 2020[17]; Better Internet for Kids, 2024[1]). Nonetheless, such entities play a significant role in shaping effective policies and programmes where they exist. Regulatory efforts targeting social media platforms and cross-border industries face hurdles, although the promotion of industry codes of conduct show promise in fostering collaboration between government and industry (OECD, 2020[17]). Digital and media literacy are identified as essential skills for children's safety online, with various initiatives focusing on community awareness and educational support. However, policy measures often prioritise risk mitigation over promoting positive digital content. Consistent approaches to monitoring and evaluating policy effectiveness remain elusive, underscoring the need for evidence-based policymaking and international cooperation to address the inherently global nature of child protection challenges (OECD, 2021[4]).
There is a growing international consensus on the necessity of digital safety by design for children (OECD, 2024[3]). Promoting safety by design to protect children online involves integrating protective measures into the design and functionality of digital products and services from the outset. This approach aims to create a safer online environment for children by proactively addressing potential risks but faces significant challenges, including the need to adapt to rapid technological innovation, coordinate diverse stakeholders, and cover implementation costs. To this end, the OECD Guidelines for Digital Service Providers recommend that companies regularly implement measures to prevent children from accessing harmful or inappropriate content and services that could affect their health, well-being, or rights (OECD, 2021[18]). These measures should be consistently reviewed and updated to keep pace with technological advances, changing usage patterns, and emerging risks. Additionally, when age-based restrictions are legally required to limit children's access to certain services, these restrictions should be proportionate, privacy-preserving, and effectively enforced (OECD, 2021[18]).
OECD (2024[3]) outlines the key components for digital safety by design to contribute to a safer digital environment for children, including:
Employing Age Assurance Mechanisms, which involves implementing systems to identify child users, enabling age-appropriate experiences (OECD, 2024[19]).
Implementing Child-Centred Design, which means focusing on children’s evolving needs and safety in product development to create accessible, engaging, and inherently safe digital services.
Preventing and Detecting Harm, which requires to proactively mitigate risks using technical measures like content filters, detection systems, real-time monitoring tools (including children’s usage time limits), and default safety settings, while ensuring regulatory compliance.
Protecting Children’s Privacy and Personal Data, which involves safeguarding children’s privacy and personal data through privacy-by-design principles and user-friendly settings.
Providing Child-Friendly Information, which aims at providing clear, accessible, and age-appropriate guidance about digital services, associated risks, and protection measures.
Facilitating Complaints and Redress, which involves establishing accessible and age-appropriate channels for children to report issues, facilitate complaints and receive timely resolutions, fostering trust.
Encouraging Child Participation, which requires involving children in online safety discussions, design processes, and policymaking to reflect their needs and perspectives.
Promoting a Culture of Safety and Well-being, in order to ensure children’s safety and well-being when designing services and implementing innovation.
Fostering a culture of safety and well-being is key to encouraging digital service providers to redesign social media, video, and gaming features that may contribute to problematic usage patterns among children. For instance, digital platforms often employ functionalities that automatically provide users with personalised, brief content – such as short videos – designed to maintain engagement and keep them online, thereby heightening the risk of excessive screen time and compulsive digital content use (Montag et al., 2019[20]). Furthermore, many techniques used by digital apps, such as endless scrolling, “like” buttons, loot boxes, and notifications, mirror strategies employed in the gambling industry, leveraging variable rewards to tap into human instincts and sustain user engagement (Qustodio, 2020[21]). As a result, Qustodio (2020[21]) estimated that in early 2020, children aged 4-15 years old spent 86 minutes per day on video service in the United States, 75 minutes per day in the United Kingdom and 63 minutes per day in Spain. These service features may also contribute to children losing track of time online – a common occurrence highlighted by a 2018 report showing that 62% of 15-year-old students across OECD countries frequently lose track of time while using digital devices.
To mitigate such risks, specific platform designs, like notification on the time spent online, can help trigger users’ self-discipline and prevent addictive behaviours (Flayelle et al. (2023[22]), Box 5.2). However, many of the protective measures introduced by governments and technology companies place a high burden of responsibility on children and their caregivers to understand and then correctly apply the recommended controls (Pasquale et al., 2022[23]). For example, the detailed terms, conditions, and cookie preference pop-ups that users are now invited to review each time they go online assume high and often unrealistic levels of digital literacy. Moreover, children’s self-control capabilities differ significantly from those of adults and are not appropriate protective measure for children of all ages. Other approaches, such as “time spent online” warnings in video games, may be less effective for children with limited capacity to set their own boundaries, or easily ignored if the risks of prolonged use of digital media are unknown.
Stricter restrictions on the content accessible to children may be required to effectively protect them from harm, as has been done by some digital service providers to reduce excessive or prolonged use (Holly et al., 2023[12]). For example, YouTube disabled autoplay for younger users, Google turned off targeted advertising and tracking for minors, and Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok made similar adjustments. Additionally, some video games and platforms, such as Tencent, have introduced "fatigue systems" that slow down or halt progression after a certain amount of continuous playtime to combat excessive use.
The establishment of codes and standards for digital service providers is also essential to help them assess the risks specific to children and implement appropriate protections. For example, industry codes and standards to protect Australians from illegal and restricted online content are designed to tackle harmful material, such as child sexual abuse content and pro-terror material, by requiring tech companies and online services (like cloud storage providers, messaging platforms, and AI-based apps) to implement safeguards (Box 5.2). These measures aim to prevent misuse of their products for distributing harmful content and offer users tools to limit exposure. The standards also cover emerging technologies, such as generative AI, with strict penalties for non-compliance, ensuring both Australian and global companies adhere to these protections under Australia’s Online Safety Act.
Codes of conduct and standards may be considered insufficient to protect children if they are not accompanied by rapid and effective changes in the design, filters, and moderation implemented by digital service providers. For this reason, some jurisdictions, such as Australia, have recently considered banning social networks allowing children children under the age of 16 to open accounts (Parliament of Australia, 2024[24]). The implementation of such a ban presents several challenges, including enforceability, the ease with which it can be circumvented (e.g., through VPNs), and concerns about children’s rights to participate in digital activities, as well as their desire to be protected rather than excluded from digital platforms (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024[25]). Moreover, it fails to equip teenagers with the skills needed to navigate the digital environment safely. Some experts worry that such a blanket ban could allow digital technology providers to deprioritise the development of protective measures tailored for younger users in online spaces, arguing that if teenagers are excluded, their safety becomes irrelevant (Wilson, 2024[26]; Australian Child Rights Taskforce, 2024[27]). However, the ban serves as a strong political statement of intent and can be leveraged to pressure digital service providers into taking more substantive actions to address existing issues.
Data protection regulators in Australia, France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom are actively promoting measures to be implemented by service providers to protect children online. In all four countries, regulators are focusing on ensuring that children’s data is protected, particularly by enforcing transparent consent processes for cookies and other tracking technologies, along with holding companies accountable for improper data collection practices.
Protective measures also aim to prevent children from accessing or being exposed to age-inappropriate online content, including pornography, and to provide all users with effective information, tools, and options to restrict their access to and exposure to such material.
Australia has introduced world-leading industry codes and standards under its Online Safety Act, aimed at enhancing online child protection and tackling harmful content, including child sexual abuse and pro-terror material. These codes and standards, These codes set out clear guidelines for companies to follow, including content moderation and reporting mechanisms, with the aim of protecting users, including children. For instance, they require tech giants and other online services – such as cloud storage providers (e.g., Apple iCloud, Google Drive) and messaging platforms – to implement measures preventing misuse for harmful content distribution.
The standards also address generative AI apps and marketplaces, including those used to create or manipulate images, ensuring safeguards against generating exploitative content. Non-compliance carries steep penalties of up to AUD 49.5 million per violation. This initiative not only impacts companies operating in Australia but also compels global compliance, marking a significant step in regulating harmful online practices worldwide.
In France, the French data protection authority, CNIL, provides recommendations for enforcing online protection for children (CNIL, 2021[28]). One key area of focus is ensuring proper parental consent is obtained before processing children's data, particularly for platforms that provide services to minors under 13. CNIL has pushed for platforms to use clear, transparent mechanisms to obtain consent for cookies and other tracking technologies, ensuring that children are adequately protected from unauthorised data collection. The CNIL's Recommendation 6 focuses on improving how minors are informed about their data rights and privacy by enhancing design. It emphasises that information for minors should be clear, simple, and engaging, using accessible language and interactive elements like icons or videos. It also highlights the importance of avoiding misleading design practices, such as dark patterns, that manipulate users. The recommendation calls for transparent interfaces and easy-to-use privacy settings, empowering minors to manage their data rights effectively.
In Ireland, the Data Protection Commission (DPC) has similarly scrutinised cookie consent mechanisms (Data Protection Commission, 2020[29]). In one major sweep, the DPC found widespread issues with cookie banners, including improper consent collection practices such as implied consent. Websites were often found to set cookies without proper user engagement, presenting default "accept" buttons with no clear options to reject cookies. The DPC emphasises that for consent to be valid, it must be freely given, specific, and informed. The DPC recommends several measures in the context of data processing and privacy, including content filters, detection systems, and also advocates for the establishment of children's usage time limits, particularly for platforms like social media, gaming, and video services. Additionally, default safety settings should be in place to limit exposure to harmful content and to automatically enforce privacy protections.
In the United Kingdom, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has implemented guidelines emphasising that children's consent for online services must be explicitly obtained, particularly for those under the age of 13 (Information Commissioner’s Office, 2024[30]). The ICO has fined several companies for not securing adequate parental consent before processing children's data. The ICO also targets misleading or inadequate cookie pop-ups, ensuring companies provide clear and specific information about how data is being collected. Since the Code's implementation in 2021, notable changes by platforms like Instagram and YouTube have been made. The ICO continues to provide guidance, ensure compliance, and push for further changes on social media and video-sharing platforms, with a focus on location tracking, profiling, and content recommendation systems. The ICO also recommends setting default safety features like private profiles, limiting data collection for targeted ads, and using age assurance technology to protect children online. They emphasise the need for platforms to incorporate these safeguards into their services to prevent risks like inappropriate content exposure and excessive use. Additionally, usage time limits and parental supervision tools, such as Instagram’s "Take a Break"1 feature are encouraged to help teens manage their time on the app.
These national initiatives align with the EU's regulatory framework, which includes complementary instruments such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive,2 a sector-specific legislation that mandates video-sharing platforms to protect minors from harmful content, and the Digital Services Act,3 a horizontal framework that governs all online platforms.
1. Instagram's "Take a Break" feature encourages users, particularly teens, to take a pause after prolonged use of the platform. It prompts users to step away after spending a set amount of time on Instagram, reminding them to take care of their well-being. The tool offers customisable time limits and provides tips on activities to engage in during the break. This initiative aims to help users manage their screen time and promote healthier online habits.
2. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) is a European Union framework that regulates traditional TV, on-demand streaming platforms, and video-sharing services to ensure fair competition, protect viewers, and promote European cultural content. It mandates the promotion of European works, safeguards minors from harmful material, combats hate speech, and sets rules for advertising, including restrictions on targeting children with unhealthy products. The directive also addresses video-sharing platforms, requiring measures to protect users from harmful content, and emphasizes accessibility for people with disabilities, fostering cultural diversity and consumer protection across the EU.
3. The Digital Services Act (DSA) is an EU regulation that establishes a comprehensive framework for governing online platforms, enhancing accountability, transparency, and user protection across the digital ecosystem. It introduces obligations for platforms to manage illegal content, prevent harmful practices, and prioritise user safety while upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of expression. The DSA also imposes stricter rules on large platforms with significant reach, requiring them to assess systemic risks, provide transparency in algorithms, and ensure fair terms for businesses. By harmonising regulations across the EU, the DSA aims to create a safer and more equitable online environment.
The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has immense potential to enhance well-being, ranging from improving the analysis of medical data to supporting learning and making knowledge more accessible to children of all ages. However, AI also poses significant risks to their well-being and inclusion, including the amplification of bias and discrimination, the erosion of privacy, exposure to fraud, and access to false or harmful content (Box 5.3). Additionally, the use of AI in social media algorithms has been linked to increased risks of depression, anxiety, and self-harm. It may also inadvertently encourage adolescents to adopt unethical behaviours.
In response, AI-driven systems like recommender algorithms, which may unintentionally amplify harmful or illegal content, should be properly regulated and evaluated. For example, OECD guidelines encourage governments to implement diligent evaluation and policy measures to mitigate risks from these systems while fostering accountability, transparency in AI algorithm and fairness (OECD, 2024[31]; OECD AI Policy Observatory, 2024[32]). Industry standards can also be developed to comply with relevant laws and obligations, and potentially using advanced technologies like AI for risk mitigation (Čorba et al., 2024[33]; OECD, 2024[31]). Gaps in national AI legislation, particularly where legal tools of production and distribution are used for illegal content, must also to be addressed. In addition to enforcing current legal frameworks, new offenses should be established to address AI-generated abuse, and children – vulnerable adopters of technology – must be central to the ethical AI debate.
Reducing algorithmic biases through the use of diverse and inclusive datasets that capture the perspectives and needs of different cultures and regions is necessary for safeguarding the rights and interests of children (Dignum et al., 2021[34]; UNICEF, 2021[35]). Implementing transparent AI models and giving children and parents more control over their data can also contribute to fostering trust and better security online. Additionally, AI development should be accompanied by continuous ethical oversight to address the risks related to misuse, misinformation, and harmful content. Regular audits and collaborative action among governments, international organisations, and digital service providers (as promoted by the OECD AI Policy Observatory) are essential to address emerging risks, ensure compliance with child protection standards, and to establish comprehensive guidelines. These measures aim to ensure that AI serves positively in children's lives, promoting both their safety and empowerment.
Managing children’s access to Virtual Reality devices will be needed, especially since this access is determined by the decisions of service providers. For instance, until 2023, guidelines from VR experience providers (e.g., Meta) and equipment manufacturers generally advised against VR use for children under 12 or 13 years old. However, younger children were already engaging with VR during that time. As of September 2023, Meta has lowered the minimum age for some headsets to 10 years with a parent-managed account. Given the development of Virtual Reality, important steps can be taken to strengthen children's protection, making the previously envisaged measures even more necessary (Box 5.3).
Artificial Intelligence
The development of AI algorithms entails a high risk of mass exposure to disinformation or inappropriate content as recent advances in generative AI have significantly lowered the barriers to creating and distributing convincing content, while making it increasingly challenging to differentiate between what is genuine and what has been manipulated (OECD, 2024[36]; Feuerriegel et al., 2023[37]). At the same time, AI is extensively used to identify potentially harmful content (e.g., explicit, triggering, violent, abusive, and radicalising content) on social media platforms. Generative AI models, especially those trained in natural language processing and image recognition, can be used to (Helmus, 2022[38]; Benzie and Montasari, 2022[39]; McGovern, 2021[40]; Nakov et al., 2021[41]; Dignum et al., 2021[34]):
Identify patterns typical of disinformation, such as manipulated text, deepfakes, or misleading visuals.
Support fact-checking by cross-referencing claims with verified databases, generating counter-narratives to disinformation, and automating the verification process by scanning large volumes of reliable data.
Help on content moderation by filtering harmful content in real time, flagging disinformation through cross-referencing with verified sources, and assisting human moderators with AI-generated summaries for more efficient review.
Predict the spread of disinformation by analysing sharing patterns, flag disinformation campaigns early, and monitor trends in harmful content to alert stakeholders of emerging threats.
Virtual Reality
Platforms and digital service providers can protect children in VR by implementing age-appropriate content controls, safety features, and technical adjustments (Dignum et al., 2021[34]). Stricter age assurance and parental controls, such as monitoring usage time and restricting content, are critical for preventing underage access to inappropriate material (Kelly, 2022[42]). Safety features, including AI-powered moderation, human oversight, and “safe zones” where children can report abuse or exit unsafe situations quickly, help detect and prevent harassment or abuse in real time (Freeman et al., 2022[43]; Dignum et al., 2021[34]). Content filters can automatically flag and block violent, explicit, or otherwise unsuitable material. Technical adjustments, like child-specific headset calibrations and mandatory breaks and time reminders, minimise physical harms such as motion sickness, while safety-focused design, such as limiting violent avatars and in-game purchases, ensures VR spaces remain suitable for younger users (ANSES, 2021[44]).
Education, transparency, and collaboration are equally important in fostering a safe VR environment. In-app safety tutorials and digital literacy programs can teach children and parents to navigate VR responsibly, identify risks, and report concerns. Platforms must ensure transparency by offering clear reporting systems and complying with privacy laws (Kelly, 2022[42]). Collaborating with researchers and regulators enables platforms to audit safety measures, fund research on VR’s impact on children, and establish effective safety standards (Fiani, 2023[45]). By promoting safe social interactions, limiting anonymity, and enabling features like “friend-only” settings, platforms can significantly reduce risks and create safer, age-appropriate virtual environments (Sabri et al., 2023[46]).
Cross-sectoral collaboration is key to foster a shared understanding of challenges involved with the digital environment for children and to develop integrative “whole-of-government” policy frameworks with the aim of more effectively addressing the complex related issues (OECD, 2021[4]; Dirwan and Thévenon, 2023[13]). In Europe, nearly one-third of countries have national action plans in place for children and the digital environment, while others report various separate initiatives. Good examples of whole integrative policy frameworks include Norway’s National Strategy for a Safe Digital Upbringing (2021), and the Slovak Republic’s National Strategy on the Protection of Children in the Digital Environment. These plans outline the challenges, objectives, and stakeholders involved in creating protective and supportive measures, as well as the specific population groups that will be targeted. They also establish the principles for coordinating efforts among various ministries (such as, in Norway, the Ministries of Health and Care Services, Justice and Public Security, Ministry of Local Government and Modernization, Culture, and the Ministry of Education and Research). The involvement of all these ministries is crucial to address the multiple aspects of children's well-being and to engage all relevant actors in the various environments where children live.
For a strategic action plan to be effectively implemented, it is essential to establish institutional procedures and tools that facilitate objective-setting for stakeholders within a coordinated action framework (Dirwan and Thévenon, 2023[13]). This includes setting institutional timelines, implementing coordination and monitoring tools, and incorporating data for reporting on the actions taken and their outcomes across different areas. It also requires clearly identifying the administration or ministerial department with the leading role. For instance, in Norway, the Norwegian Media Authority oversees and coordinates efforts for a safe digital childhood across ministries. However, this type of leadership and coordination role is not well established in all countries. In Europe, only six countries have a central body, ministry, or agency that is mandated to lead policy development on child digital matters (Better Internet for Kids, 2024[1]). Coordination of delivery mechanisms is also similarly distributed across multiple areas of responsibility. Only seven European countries have a clearly defined coordination function in place that involves all relevant stakeholders and addresses cross-cutting policy issues relating to children and the digital environment. In most cases, coordination occurs more informally, and there is no formal implementation action plan with defined timelines, assigned responsibilities, or key performance indicators. Consequently, establishing monitoring, accountability, and a clear-cut governance framework remains a significant challenge for many countries seeking to enhance their efforts in promoting children's well-being in the digital environment.
Teachers, schools, and education systems play an important role in preparing children to navigate the digital environment, develop digital skills and citizenship,3 circumvent risks, and minimise the impact of negative experiences online on their well-being (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[47]). Teachers and educators can help to equip children with digital literacy skills, teach them how to use digital technologies for learning, and share advice on responding to harmful content or contacts online. The education sector places significant importance on this role, as OECD research shows that, across countries, teachers consistently rank Information and Communication Technology skills for teaching as their second-most critical professional development need, following training on teaching students with special needs. Additionally, teachers express low confidence in using digital technologies to support student learning (OECD, 2020[48]).
The OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment emphasises the importance of assisting teachers in recognising the opportunities and benefits for children in the digital environment, while also evaluating and addressing risks (OECD, 2022[5]; 2021[4]). Additionally, it underscores the significance of involving educational bodies as key stakeholders in multi-stakeholder dialogues concerning children’s needs in the digital space.
To further these efforts, schools have a role to play in establishing consistent goals and policies, and in educating students and raising awareness among parents about the risks associated with the digital environment. Schools can also help to prevent cyber risks faced by adolescents (Paat and Markham, 2021[49]; Cassidy, Brown and Jackson, 2012[50]). Guidance on how to detect and respond to cases of cyberbullying and other digital harms can be incorporated into school curricula, encouraging the adoption of school-based processes and action plans to address such incidents in collaboration with school psychologists or social workers. Furthermore, students could receive regular reminders about Internet safety tips, including evidence preservation, blocking, tracking, responsible online communication, and preventive measures. School administrators can also promote empathy, trust, open communication, and support for students who experience cyber trauma, thereby encouraging victims to report incidences of cyber harm (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016[51]).
Another challenge schools face is ensuring that personal digital tools, such as mobile phones, do not disrupt the learning environment for students. This concern is amplified by the fact that a substantial minority of teenagers do not disable notifications on their digital devices during class time. According to PISA data, on average, nearly half (44%) of 15-year-olds across OECD countries usually keep notifications active on their digital devices during class. Children from low socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to keep their notifications active, possibly because they attend schools without specific policies regarding mobile phone use (Figure 5.1).
15-year-old students who report to turn off notifications on their digital devices half of the time or less during class, by socio-economic status
Note: *The difference between students with high and low socio-economic status is statistically significant at the 5% level.
15-year-old students were asked "Think about your use of digital devices. How often do you feel or act the following ways? (If you don't have or use a digital device, please select 'not applicable') ... I turn off notifications from social networks and apps on my digital devices during class", and presented with the response options "Never or almost never", "Less than half of the time", "About half of the time", "More than half of the time", "All or almost all of the time", and "Not applicable". Data refer to the percent responding "Never or almost never", "Less than half of the time" or "About half the time". Students who responded "Not applicable" are excluded from the analysis.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on OECD (2022[52]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Building confidence in using digital technologies is a key factor in reducing the risk of being distracted by them. PISA 2022 analyses show that 15-year-old students with higher self-perceived competence in Information and Communication Technology4 are less likely to report being easily distracted (OECD, 2024[53]). However, not all students have the same level of mastery over digital devices or time management skills.
One proposed measure to minimise distractions and enhance learning in schools is banning smartphones. However, the suitability and effectiveness of such bans in improving educational outcomes remain a topic of ongoing debate. Evidence from PISA 2022 indicates that many schools have implemented guidelines to address distractions caused by digital device use, such as general usage rules, teacher-enforced regulations, collaborative rules with students, or programs promoting responsible Internet behaviour. However, these policies show little correlation with reducing the likelihood of students becoming distracted during class (OECD, 2023[54]; 2024[53]).
Cross-national data suggest that banning cell phones in class may help reduce distractions: for instance, in PISA 2022 data, students are less likely to report being distracted by using digital devices in mathematics lessons when the use of cell phones on school premises is banned (OECD, 2023[54]). However, evidence from PISA data also suggests that such bans can be difficult to enforce. Across OECD countries, an average of 29% of students in schools with mobile phone bans still reported using smartphones several times a day, while an additional 21% used them every day or almost every day at school. Furthermore, data analysis reveals that the likelihood of students being distracted during mathematics lessons is higher in countries where the percentage of students using smartphones is significantly lower in schools that prohibit phone use compared to those that allow it. This suggests that phone bans may be more effective in reducing distractions when enforced more consistently (OECD, 2023[54]). Smartphones can be banned from classrooms through various methods. Schools may implement policies that require students to leave their phones in lockers or designated areas before entering the classroom, with teachers enforcing strict rules against usage during lessons. Some schools use technology to block phone signals or limit Wi-Fi access in classrooms, preventing students from connecting to the Internet. Another approach is to adopt "no phone zones" by creating physical spaces where phone use is prohibited. Additionally, schools may encourage students to use their phones only for educational purposes, with clear guidelines on appropriate usage, or enforce penalties like confiscation for non-compliance. Some schools may authorise the use of smartphones during breaks or lunch time, while others may forbid it during the whole school day.
Enforcing mobile phone bans to impact students’ behaviour in and outside the classroom is challenging. Past experiences, such as those in New York City, suggest that blanket bans may create new problems (Selwyn, 2019[55]). Initially, a ban of mobile phones from schools was introduced and later revoked due to practical difficulties in enforcing it during break times and lunch periods. Students and parents expressed the need for students to contact family members during these times. Consequently, limiting smartphone restrictions within the classroom was considered more efficient than banning them entirely from schools, with schools and teachers trusted to exercise professional judgment on how to manage the exclusion of cell phones from classroom. This experience suggests that leaving room for local adjustment on how to manage the ban on cell phones is necessary for the most effective application possible (Grigic Magnusson et al., 2023[56]; Smale, Hutcheson and Russo, 2021[57]). In addition, although many teachers, parents, and students support restrictions on smartphone use at school, it is argued that “phone-free” policies should clearly define their purpose and context. This would ensure that devices can still be used to support medical needs or learning, while allowing flexibility for individuals who have valid reasons to access their phones (Rahali, Kidron and Livingstone, 2024[58]).
Ensuring that banning mobile phones at school does not inadvertently lead students to engage in unhealthy digital device use in the evening (at home) is also crucial, is also important, as Chapter 4 demonstrated that prolonged use before bedtime can affect sleep quality. This risk is suggested by PISA data, which show that when mobile phones are banned at school, students are less likely to turn off notifications from social networks and apps on their devices before going to sleep – even after controlling for differences in the socio-economic status and students' test performance (OECD, 2023[54]). This challenge underscores the importance of considering the interconnections between the various environments in which children live (i.e., school and home), as outlined in Chapter 2. It highlights the need to assess the potential consequences of school-imposed restrictions on students' lives outside of school and stresses the importance of incorporating feedback from parents, guardians, and caregivers to refine these measures.
Whether banning phones from schools has the desired impact on students’ school performance and well-being is an open question. In a review of evidence, Rahali et al. (2024[58]) highlight several studies indicating that restricting smartphone use can improve students' academic performance, particularly among disadvantaged students or those with suboptimal performance. However, the findings are mixed, with some methods being questioned and certain studies showing no benefits or even negative effects. Similar mixed evidence exists the impact of banning mobile phones in schools on students’ well-being: some studies show positive effects on well-being and mental health, while others find no impact or even negative consequences due to increased anxiety from phone restrictions (Campbell and Edwards, 2024[59]). Similarly, the effect of mobile phone bans on bullying and cyberbullying is inconclusive. While some studies report reduced bullying following bans, others suggest that incidents of online victimisation and harassment may be greater in schools with phone restrictions, possibly because students perceive the bans as punitive, affecting the overall school climate (Campbell and Edwards, 2024[59]). Given the limited number of studies, the evidence lacks sufficient depth to determine which policies are most effective for overall student well-being or for children of different age groups (Rahali, Kidron and Livingstone, 2024[58]).
The responsibility for ensuring a safe and beneficial digital environment for children primarily lies with digital service providers, who design and manage the online spaces children engage with, and with governments, which create policies and practices aimed at both empowering and protecting children (OECD, 2021[4]; 2022[5]). At the same time, parents, carers, and guardians play a critical role as partners in implementing these protections. For this reason, it is essential that digital services are designed to meet the needs of both children and the adults responsible for their care.
Parenting behaviours for managing children's digital media use should evolve with age (Reich and Madigan, 2025[60]). At younger ages, rigid rules and strong oversight are crucial, while adolescents benefit from more flexible rules and open discussions. As children grow, they need increased digital autonomy alongside guidance on maintaining healthy media habits that promote learning, creativity, and connection. Throughout all stages, it is important for parents to engage in conversations about digital media use and model healthy habits.
The ever-evolving landscape of technology can sometimes leave parents, caregivers, and guardians feeling ill-equipped to fully grasp the intricacies and risks involved (OECD, 2020[17]). In response to this, parents and caregivers need support in actively mediating5 children’s use of digital devices and services, helping them develop the skills and understanding necessary to navigate and critically engage with digital technologies and online environments (Koch, Laaber and Florack, 2024[61]). To exercise this role, parents need transparent information on how digital services engage with their children, including on aspects such as privacy settings, data processes and retention policies, terms of service, and community standards (OECD, 2021[18]; Council of Europe, 2018[62]; OHCHR, 2021[63]).
To achieve this goal, the OECD Guidelines for Digital Service Providers highlight that these providers should offer information that is clear, understandable, accessible, and written in plain, age-appropriate language how their children’s and parents’ personal data is collected and used (OECD, 2021[18]). It also underlines that data collection and sharing should be limited to what is necessary to provide the service in the child's best interests. Additionally, children’s data should not be used in ways that harm their wellbeing, which requires prohibiting the profiling of children or automated decision-making unless there is a compelling reason for it and adequate safeguards to protect children (OECD, 2021[18]). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also recommend prohibiting the profiling or targeting of children for commercial purposes based on their digital characteristics (OHCHR, 2021[63]). It also calls for banning practices like neuromarketing, emotional analytics, immersive advertising, and virtual or augmented reality ads from engaging with children to promote products or services.
Last but not least, clear and transparent processes must be established on what parents and children can do if they consider there is a problem or injustice (OHCHR, 2021[63]). For example, parents of very young children should have the right to object to routine digital surveillance of their child in commercial settings and educational and care settings. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also recommend that effective judicial and non-judicial remedial mechanisms for violations of children’s rights in the digital environment should be widely known and easily accessible to all children and their representatives. These mechanisms must be free of charge, safe, confidential, responsive, child-friendly, and provided in accessible formats (OHCHR, 2021[63]).
Providing support to parents and caregivers with limited digital literacy is essential to help them understand the risks to children’s well-being in the digital environment, access remedies for harm, and guide children in developing responsible digital practices (OECD, 2021[4]). A number of countries have programmes in place to meet the digital literacy needs of parents, and to raise their awareness of the specific risks that their children may face in the digital environment (Better Internet for Kids, 2024[1]). For instance, in France, the Ministry of Education established “La Mallette des parents” as part of its policy to educate parents about school teaching programmes, and issues such as cyberbullying, safeguarding children’s privacy, and the use of digital devices in the classroom. In Germany, the media guide SCHAU HIN! supports parents and guardians with age-appropriate, up-to-date recommendations for children's media use that are suitable for everyday use. Parents and guardians can also attend media courses to learn how to deal with digital media and support children and young people.
Managing children’s screen time and access to content is one of the key challenges for parents. It is also a significant source of difficulty or conflict between parents and children, alongside issues such as bedtime/sleep, eating habits, and homework (Livingstone et al., 2015[64]). Promoting good digital practices involves that parents can control when children use digital devices, limit the amount of time spent on them, and select the content and type of services their children can access to. For example, given the disruptive effect of prolonged digital device use before bedtime (Chapter 4), parents play a crucial role in assisting digital device usage at night. This is especially important as nearly half of 15-year-olds report that they do not typically turn off notifications at bedtime (Figure 5.2). Consistently across OECD countries, boys (51% on average) are more likely than girls (43%) to report that they rarely turn off notifications before going to sleep (Panel A). Adolescents with low socio-economic status are also less likely (54%) to do so than their socio-economically advantaged peers (39%) (Panel B).
15-year-old students who report turning off notifications on their digital devices half of the time or less before going to sleep
Note: *The difference between boys and girls, and students with high and low socio-economic status is statistically significant at the 5% level.
15-year-old students were asked "Think about your use of digital devices. How often do you feel or act the following ways? (If you don't have or use a digital device, please select 'not applicable') ... I turn off notifications from social networks and apps on my digital devices when going to sleep." and presented with the response options "Never or almost never", "Less than half of the time", "About half of the time", "More than half of the time", "All or almost all of the time", and "Not applicable". Data refer to the percent responding "Never or almost never", "Less than half of the time" or "About half the time". Students who responded "Not applicable" are excluded from the analysis.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on OECD (2022[52]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Limiting screen time can be more problematic than controlling the content children engage with. A key issue for parents is finding the right balance between control, restriction, and guidance in navigating the digital space. Many children express a desire for such a balance, seeking more support and encouragement in their digital activities, especially when they perceive parents’ and caregivers’ approaches to be punitive, overly restrictive, or not adjusted to their evolving capacities (Livingstone et al., 2015[64]). Moreover, while restrictive measures are associated with the lowest levels of risk exposure, they also appear to limit children’s online opportunities to learn, explore, develop digital skills or gain resilience to risk (Livingstone et al., 2015[64]). Active mediation appears most promising in terms of minimising risks without minimising opportunities, but the evidence for such dual effectiveness is not yet strong. Nor have such a balance been studied in relation to much younger children.
Research evidence suggests that parents' awareness and simple actions can significantly help parents managing their children’s access to digital technologies and content (Muppalla et al., 2023[65]). Since prolonged screen use in early childhood often persists into later years and is linked to unhealthy behaviours, such as insufficient sleep, incorporating screen-use guidelines in birth kits for new parents can help highlight the associated risks and encourage parents to select high quality content of screen media (Swider-Cios, Vermeij and Sitskoorn, 2023[66]). Additionally, health visitors can offer advice grounded in medical evidence. Possible additions to interventions could also include the use of an electronic monitoring device to restrict screen time and manage access to media content, the conditional use of screens on physical activity, or education via mass or small media (such as newsletters, brochures, or billboards) (Muppalla et al., 2023[65]).
In response to the physical and mental health risks associated with children spending excessive time on digital devices or watching TV, many countries have introduced recommendations encouraging parents and caregivers to limit their children's screen time, in line with the World Health Organisation's Guidelines on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Sleep for Children Under 5 Years of Age (World Health Organisation (2019[67]), Box 5.4). These types of recommendations offer the benefit of outlining simple principles that everyone can understand, making them accessible for families who lack the time or expertise to implement more sophisticated screen-time management strategies or exercise detailed control over different types of digital tool use. However, there are significant limitations. Indiscriminate application may intensify conflicts between parents and children regarding screen time, potentially harming the overall quality of parent-child relationships. Moreover, the most restrictive recommendation may be impractical given current behaviours. For instance, the recommendation suggested in France to prohibit teenagers from using smartphones with Internet access by age 13 (Benyamina and Mouton, 2024[68]) will be difficult to enforce in a context where already 40% of 10-year-olds own a smartphone, with the percentage increasing to 98% among 15-year-olds.
An approach supported by several professional health associations proposes recommendations that go beyond setting time limits. These recommendations include principles and tips to help parents and caregivers mitigate the risks of the digital world and promote good screen time practices (Box 5.4). Rather than focusing on the catch-all notion of “screen time”, it is suggested to consider whether, when and why particular digital activities help or harm individual children. The approach taken by the Canadian Paediatric Society is particularly interesting in how it combines recommendations to minimise screen time, mitigate screen time risks, and to engage all family members in developing and sharing good digital practices. This approach aligns with the previously reviewed evidence, which suggests that discussions and restrictions on the content of accessible platforms and apps may be more effective than time restrictions alone, and that parent-child interactive engagement is necessary to gain the benefits of time spent on digital devices (Vedechkina and Borgonovi, 2021[69]) (Chapter 4).
The World Health Organization (WHO) provides specific guidelines for screen time for children, which are part of their broader recommendations on physical activity, sedentary behaviours, and sleep (World Health Organisation, 2019[67]). The recommendations vary with child age and are as follow:
For infants (less than 1 year old) and 1-year-olds: Screen time is not recommended. The focus should be on physical activity and interactive floor-based play.
For 2-year-olds, screen time should be limited to no more than 1 hour per day; less is better. Engaging in activities that involve physical movement and interaction with caregivers is encouraged.
For children aged 3-4 years: Screen time should be limited to no more than 1 hour per day; less is better. Activities that involve physical activity and social interaction are preferred.
Many OECD countries have also issued recommendations that vary in nature, reflecting diverse approaches to balancing the benefits and risks associated with the time spent with screens. The recommendations primarily focus on limiting screen time to promote health sleep and physical development in children. In some countries, guidelines issued by associations of health professionals go beyond mere time restrictions and address how to mitigate the risks of the digital world and promote good practices.
Australia and Germany are examples where the main focus of the recommendation lies in promoting physical activity and development. In Australia, national guidelines for screen time are included in the Australian Department of Health's Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines which recommend that children under 2 years old should avoid all screens except for video chatting; children aged 2 to 5 years should be limited to less than one hour per day; For children aged 5 to 17 years, screen time should be limited to no more than two hours of recreational screen time per day, in addition to using screens for educational purposes.
In Germany, the German Federal Ministry of Heath recommends that children have minimum screen time: no screen time for infants and toddlers; as little as possible, maximum of 30 minutes/day for preschool children; maximum of 60 minutes/day for primary school children and up to a maximum of two hours for adolescents. In the United Kingdom, there is no specific hourly limit, but guidelines emphasize the importance of ensuring that screen time does not interfere with sleep, physical activity, and time spent on other important activities (Health Promotion Knowledge Gateway - European Commission, 2021[70]).
Canada takes a broader approach, where the Canadian Paediatric Society provides recommendation to minimise screen time but also to mitigate risks and promote better use of screen time (Canadian Pediatric Society, 2022[71]). Specific recommendations for families include:
Minimise screen time: Under 2 years: Screen time is not recommended, except for video-chatting with caring adults; Ages 2 to 5 years: Limit screen time to about 1 hour or less per day; limit recreational screen time to no more than two hours per day for older children. More broadly it is recommended to ensure that screen time is not a routine part of childcare for children under 5 years, and maintain screen-free times, particularly during family meals and book-sharing. Avoid screens at least 1 hour before bedtime to prevent stimulation and melatonin suppression.
Mitigate screen time risks by being present and engaged during screen use, co-viewing with children to promote digital media literacy and help them recognize and question advertising and stereotypes; prioritising educational, age-appropriate, and interactive programming, and encourage creative activities using screen devices; monitoring media use by creating playlists or selecting appropriate channels, limiting exposure to advertising and commercial content.
Enhance family mindfulness about screen use by: conducting a self-assessment of screen habits and developing a family media plan; prioritising shared family media use over solitary screen time for children; and encouraging older siblings to mentor younger children’s digital use.
In France, a balance between quantitative and qualitive recommendations is provided by the Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique which recommends that:
Before the age of 3, screens should be banned unless there is parental interaction. 3D screens should be banned for children under the age of 5. For older children, screen time recommendations are similar to those in other countries, focusing on balancing screen use with other healthy activities
Keep screens out of children's bedrooms and do not allow them to watch television an hour before going to sleep.
Support screen consumption according to screen type, age category, and content.
Strike a balance between authorisation and prohibition, and limit screen time to allow time for other activities.
Be able to spot the warning signs of excessive screen use and seek help and advice when needed.
The issue of smartphone use among adolescents is addressed by an expert commission established by the French President. It recommends that children under the age of 11 should not be given mobile phones (Benyamina and Mouton, 2024[68]). It suggests that children should only use devices without Internet access until they reach the age of 13. To enforce this recommendation, the Commission proposes requiring users to declare their date of birth when purchasing a smartphone or subscribing to a mobile phone plan. Alternatively, smartphones sold in France could be labelled with "not suitable for under 13s".
In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health considers that there is insufficient evidence to confirm that screen time is inherently harmful to child health at any age (RCPCH, 2024[72]). As a result, the College considers that it is not possible to recommend age-appropriate time limits. However, the College suggests a series of questions to help families make informed decisions about their screen time use. These questions include:
Is your family’s screen time under control?
Does screen use interfere with what your family want to do?
Does screen use interfere with sleep?
Are you able to control snacking during screen time use?
In the United States, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry offers a series of guidelines aimed at helping families mitigate risks and maximise the benefits of children's engagement with digital devices (AACAP, 2024[73]). Families are encouraged to consider the following guidelines.
Until 18 months of age limit screen use to video chatting along with an adult (for example, with a parent who is out of town).
Between 18- and 24-months screen time should be limited to watching educational programming with a caregiver.
For children 2-5, limit non-educational screen time to about 1 hour per weekday and 3 hours on the weekend days.
For ages 6 and older, encourage healthy habits and limit activities that include screens.
Turn off all screens during family meals and outings.
Learn about and use parental controls.
Avoid using screens as pacifiers, babysitters, or to stop tantrums.
Turn off screens and remove them from bedrooms 30-60 minutes before bedtime.
It is also recommended to establish a screen-time plan, where children can share their ideas and concerns.
In the United States, a report from an expert committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concludes that there is a lack of strong evidence that social media causes population-level changes in adolescent health. Instead, it influences individuals differently, balancing risks, benefits, and neutral impacts (National Academies, 2023[74]). Due to limited robust evidence, the committee proposed a research agenda to explore these relationships further. Interim recommendations include platform design changes for greater transparency, expanded education for youth and adults, and measures to address online harassment and bullying.
Most recently, the American Psychological Association's guide on healthy teen video viewing emphasises the importance of balance in video consumption, noting that the content teens watch can significantly impact their well-being (American Psychological Association, 2024[75]). It highlights how video content can support personal growth but also pose risks, particularly through platform features like autoplay and algorithm-driven recommendations. Parents are encouraged to set clear rules, engage in discussions about content, and model positive viewing habits to foster critical thinking and healthier choices in teens. The guide also underscores the role of education and policy in promoting media literacy and safeguarding youth from harmful content. Schools can teach video literacy as part of broader media education, while regulators and platforms should enhance moderation and age-appropriate labelling. Collaboration between parents, educators, and policymakers is key to ensuring teens develop a constructive relationship with video content.
The provision of parental control functions in the settings of the digital tools used by children is a useful way to enable parents to set boundaries in what children can access and to support children in progressively exploring the features and information available online. But there are also risks in their use, such as false sense of security, controlling behaviour by family members or others, and children not taking responsibility for some aspects of their learning and life necessary to mature (Wood, 2024[76]; Stoilova, Bulger and Livingstone, 2024[77]). Moreover, parental controls may be perceived as shifting responsibility onto parents regarding their child's use and potential exposure to risks, with parents who may not be able to make meaningful changes to the service other than binary decisions about access or not. This can be seen as companies outsourcing the responsibility for their services, whereas the key priority should be designing services with built-in safety measures, rather than relying on parental controls (OECD, 2024[3]). Moreover, while there is little support for advocating parental controls as a stand-alone strategy, parents value them when embedded in a broader approach to parental mediation and parent – child relations (Stoilova, Bulger and Livingstone, 2024[77]).
Last, research indicates that parents' mobile device use is linked to distracted parenting, often leading to children seeking attention through high-risk behaviours (Reich et al., 2025[78]). Observational studies show that when a parent's cell phone is present, there is less affection, responsiveness, and language interaction with their children. Therefore, family media plans could address both children's and parents' media use, including by setting device-free zones, such as the dinner table, to promote healthier interactions.
The OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment underscores the importance of effective child participation, calling on all actors to uphold children’s right to freely express their views and participate in digital matters according to their age and maturity (OECD, 2021[4]; 2022[5]). Consulting children helps ensure that decisions are appropriate for their age and maturity level while also increasing the likelihood that measures, such as restrictions on digital device access, are understood and accepted, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliance. Finally, both parents and children often struggle to understand the available tools, the risks they face, and their responsibilities. Involving children (and parents) in the design of digital devices and in the communication about how to use them safely is a practical way to enhance transparency, understanding, and effective protection for children (Milkaite and Lievens, 2020[79]; OHCHR, 2021[63]).
Child participation can take various forms, such as engaging children individually in matters that affect them personally, like seeking redress for harm in the digital environment or enabling them to make informed decisions about their privacy settings (OECD, 2022[5]). It also includes consulting children in policy development or research and incorporating their views into the outcomes. Additionally, child participation can involve including youth voices in the design and development of digital services.
Including young people in consultations about digital matters is increasingly common, but countries vary in how actively they involve children in shaping digital environment policies. Some countries have dedicated structures for active participation, while others consider children's interests indirectly through surveys or existing data. A survey in Europe found that slightly more than half of the countries directly involve children in developing digital environment policies, using methods like hearings, consultations, and specific surveys (Better Internet for Kids, 2024[1]). In countries like Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Slovenia, children are actively engaged in designing policies through specially designed structures. For instance in Ireland, the regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, established a Youth Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from nine national organisations and nine individuals under 25, to advise on policies such as the draft online safety code. At European level, the Better Internet for Kids’ Youth Programme offers young people an engaging platform to share their views on making the Internet safer and better for children and youth.
A significant challenge with child consultations is their tendency to favour more advantaged children, often resulting in low reach among children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Dirwan and Thévenon, 2023[13]; Gottschalk and Borhan, 2023[80]). When consulting children, it is then crucial to provide ample opportunities for participation from socially disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds. This entails addressing the varying needs and potential obstacles disadvantaged children may face in participating, such as geographical distance, the material cost of participation, or, especially for non-native speakers, the lack of proficiency in the consultation’s language.
Adolescents express a desire for online protection with safe access to digital media. An international consultation of 709 children and young people aged 9-22 years across 27 countries revealed that they seek spaces for creativity, experimentation, and exercising agency (Third and Moody, 2021[81]). During this consultation, children and young people called on States and other duty bearers to ensure that they have truthful information in their language, as well as transparent and child-friendly information about how digital services work. Simultaneously, they want digital platforms to cease commercial exploitation, data collection, and exposure to misinformation and harmful content. They also demand more information about how their data is collected, stored, and used, greater protection of their privacy, and less surveillance by commercial entities and parents. They expressed the desire for parents and carers to afford them greater trust and autonomy to use digital technologies responsibly, to be better informed about the benefits and harms relating to digital technologies, to develop their own digital literacies, and to model appropriate technology use for children.
References
[73] AACAP (2024), Screen Time and Children, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-And-Watching-TV-054.aspx.
[75] American Psychological Association (2024), APA Recommendations for Healthy Teen Video Viewing, https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/healthy-teen-video-viewing (accessed on 6 January 2025).
[44] ANSES (2021), Opinion on on the “health effects associated with exposure to virtual and/or augmented reality technologies”, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/AP2017SA0076EN.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2024).
[27] Australian Child Rights Taskforce (2024), Open letter regarding proposed social media bans for children, https://apo.org.au/node/328608 (accessed on 5 March 2025).
[25] Australian Human Rights Commission (2024), Proposed Social Media Ban for Under-16s in Australia, https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/proposed-social-media-ban-under-16s-australia?mc_cid=78865662a3 (accessed on 9 January 2025).
[10] Benvenuti, M. et al. (2023), “Teens online: how perceived social support influences the use of the Internet during adolescence”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 39/2, pp. 629-650, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00705-5.
[68] Benyamina, A. and S. Mouton (2024), Enfants et écrans: À la recherche du temps perdu, Rapport de la commission d’experts sur l’impact de l’exposition des jeunes aux écrans., https://www.codeps13.org/documentation/nouveaute-cote-doc/rapport--enfants-et-ecrans--a-la-recherche-du-temps-perdu (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[39] Benzie, A. and R. Montasari (2022), “Artificial Intelligence and the Spread of Mis- and Disinformation”, Artificial Intelligence and National Security, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06709-9_1.
[1] Better Internet for Kids (2024), “The Better Internet for Kids (BIK) Policy Monitor Report 2024”, https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/bikmap (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[47] Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (eds.) (2019), Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-being in the Digital Age, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7f33425-en.
[59] Campbell, M. and E. Edwards (2024), We looked at all the recent evidence on mobile phone bans in schools – this is what we found, The Conversation.
[71] Canadian Pediatric Society (2022), Screen time and preschool children: Promoting health and development in a digital world, Position Paper, https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/screen-time-and-preschool-children (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[50] Cassidy, W., K. Brown and M. Jackson (2012), “‘Under the radar’: Educators and cyberbullying in schools”, School Psychology International, Vol. 33/5, pp. 520-532, https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312445245.
[7] Cino, D. et al. (2022), “Predictors of children’s and young people’s digital engagement in informational, communication, and entertainment activities: findings from ten European countries”, Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 17/1, pp. 37-54, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2022.2123013.
[28] CNIL (2021), La CNIL publie 8 recommandations pour renforcer la protection des mineurs en ligne, https://www.cnil.fr/fr/la-cnil-publie-8-recommandations-pour-renforcer-la-protection-des-mineurs-en-ligne (accessed on 12 December 2024).
[33] Čorba, J. et al. (2024), Evolving with innovation: The 2024 OECD AI Principles update, https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/evolving-with-innovation-the-2024-oecd-ai-principles-update (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[62] Council of Europe (2018), Guidelines to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/guidelines-to-respect-protect-and-fulfil-the-rights-of-the-child-in-th/16808d881a (accessed on 15 December 2024).
[29] Data Protection Commission (2020), Report by the Data Protection Commission on the use of cookies and other tracking technologies, Data Protection Commission, Dublin, https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/press-releases/report-dpc-use-cookies-and-other-tracking-technologies.
[34] Dignum, V. et al. (2021), Policy guidance on AI for children, UNICEF Innocenti Global Office of Research and Foresight, https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/policy-guidance-ai-children (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[13] Dirwan, G. and O. Thévenon (2023), “Integrated policy making for child well-being: Common approaches and challenges ahead”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, No. 16, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a5202af-en.
[37] Feuerriegel, S. et al. (2023), “Research can help to tackle AI-generated disinformation”, Nature, Vol. 7/7, pp. 1818-1821, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01726-2.
[45] Fiani, C. (2023), Ensuring Child Safety in Social VR: Navigating Different Perspectives and Merging Viewpoints, http://mkhamis.com/data/papers/fiani2023chiworkshop.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2024).
[22] Flayelle, M. et al. (2023), “A taxonomy of technology design features that promote potentially addictive online behaviours”, Nature Reviews Psychology, Vol. 2/3, pp. 136-150, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00153-4.
[43] Freeman, G. et al. (2022), “Disturbing the Peace: Experiencing and Mitigating Emerging Harassment in Social Virtual Reality”, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6/CSCW1, https://doi.org/10.1145/3512932.
[80] Gottschalk, F. and H. Borhan (2023), “Child participation in decision making: Implications for education and beyond”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 301, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a37eba6c-en.
[56] Grigic Magnusson, A. et al. (2023), “Complexities of Managing a Mobile Phone Ban in the Digitalized Schools’ Classroom”, Computers in the Schools, Vol. 40/3, pp. 303-323, https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2211062.
[70] Health Promotion Knowledge Gateway - European Commission (2021), Recommendations on sedentary time for children and adolescents, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/physical-activity-sedentary-behaviour-table-3a_en (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[38] Helmus, T. (2022), “Artificial Intelligence, Deepfakes, and Disinformation: A Primer”, Perspective, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1043-1.html (accessed on 16 October 2024).
[12] Holly, L. et al. (2023), “Optimising adolescent wellbeing in a digital age”, BMJ, Vol. 380, p. e068279, https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ-2021-068279.
[30] Information Commissioner’s Office (2024), Protecting children’s privacy online: Our Children’s code strategy, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/childrens-information/childrens-code-guidance-and-resources/protecting-childrens-privacy-online-our-childrens-code-strategy/ (accessed on 12 December 2024).
[42] Kelly, G. (2022), Privacy of Virtual Reality: Our Future in the Metaverse and Beyond, Common Sense Media, San Francisco, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/privacy-of-virtual-reality-our-future-in-the-metaverse-and-beyond (accessed on 17 December 2024).
[61] Koch, T., F. Laaber and A. Florack (2024), “Socioeconomic status and young people’s digital maturity: The role of parental mediation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 154, p. 108157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108157.
[9] Lee, S. (2009), “Online Communication and Adolescent Social Ties: Who benefits more from Internet use?”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 14/3, pp. 509-531, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01451.x.
[16] Livingstone, S., E. Lievens and J. Carr (2020), “Handbook for policy makers on the rights of the child in the digital environment”, http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8683764 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
[64] Livingstone, S. et al. (2015), How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style, LSE: EU Kids Online.
[8] Mascheroni, G. and K. Olafsson (2014), Net Children Go Mobile: risks and opportunities. Second Edition., Department of Communication and Performing Arts Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, https://publires.unicatt.it/en/publications/net-children-go-mobile-risks-and-opportunities-second-edition-10 (accessed on 8 August 2024).
[40] McGovern, A. (2021), Artificial intelligence system could help counter the spread of disinformation, https://news.mit.edu/2021/artificial-intelligence-system-could-help-counter-spread-disinformation-0527 (accessed on 16 October 2024).
[79] Milkaite, I. and E. Lievens (2020), “Child-friendly transparency of data processing in the EU: from legal requirements to platform policies”, Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 14/1, pp. 5-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2019.1701055.
[20] Montag, C. et al. (2019), “Addictive Features of Social Media/Messenger Platforms and Freemium Games against the Background of Psychological and Economic Theories”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16/14, p. 2612, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142612.
[65] Muppalla, S. et al. (2023), “Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Child Development: An Updated Review and Strategies for Management”, Cureus, Vol. 15/6, p. e40608, https://doi.org/10.7759/CUREUS.40608.
[41] Nakov, P. et al. (2021), “Automated Fact-Checking for Assisting Human Fact-Checkers”, IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 4551-4558, https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/619.
[74] National Academies (2023), Social Media and Adolescent Health, Consensus Study report - National Academies Sciences, Engineering and Medecine, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/27396/Highlights_for_Social_Media_and_Adolescent_Health.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2025).
[6] Odgers, C. and M. Jensen (2020), “Annual Research Review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: facts, fears, and future directions”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 61/3, pp. 336-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/JCPP.13190.
[19] OECD (2024), Age assurance for children’s safety and well-being online: A project proposal, OECD - 93rd Session of the Digital Policy Committee.
[31] OECD (2024), “Assessing potential future artificial intelligence risks, benefits and policy imperatives”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 27, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f4e3dfb-en.
[36] OECD (2024), Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d909ff7a-en.
[53] OECD (2024), “Managing screen time How to protect and equip students against distraction”, PISA in Focus, No. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7c225af4-en.
[3] OECD (2024), “Towards Digital Safety by Design for Children”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 363, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c167b650-en.
[2] OECD (2024), What Does Child Empowerment Mean Today? Implications for Education and Well-Being, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f80ce38-en.
[54] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[5] OECD (2022), Companion Document to the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a2ebec7c-en.
[14] OECD (2022), Delivering For Youth: How Governments Can Put Young People at the Centre of the Recovery, https://doi.org/10.1787/92c9d060-en.
[52] OECD (2022), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
[18] OECD (2021), OECD Guidelines for Digital Service Providers, OECD, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/272/5803627d-b49b-4894-8dbe-35f67fd10007.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2024).
[4] OECD (2021), OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0389 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
[15] OECD (2020), “Going Digital integrated policy framework”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 292, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dc930adc-en.
[48] OECD (2020), “Insights and Interpretations TALIS 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey”.
[17] OECD (2020), “Protecting children online: An overview of recent developments in legal frameworks and policies”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 295, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9e0e49a9-en.
[32] OECD AI Policy Observatory (2024), OECD AI Principles overview, https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[63] OHCHR (2021), General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[49] Paat, Y. and C. Markham (2021), “Digital crime, trauma, and abuse: Internet safety and cyber risks for adolescents and emerging adults in the 21st century”, Social Work in Mental Health, Vol. 19/1, pp. 18-40, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2020.1845281.
[24] Parliament of Australia (2024), Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd39 (accessed on 9 January 2025).
[23] Pasquale, L. et al. (2022), “Digital Age of Consent and Age Verification: Can They Protect Children?”, IEEE Software, Vol. 39/3, pp. 50-57, https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2020.3044872.
[21] Qustodio (2020), Connected More than Ever, https://qweb.cdn.prismic.io/qweb/e59c2e0f-ef4f-4598-b330-10c430e2ec71_Qustodio+2020+Annual+Report+on+Children%27s+Digital+Habits.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
[58] Rahali, M., B. Kidron and S. Livingstone (2024), Smartphone policies in schools, Digital Futures for Children - London School of Economics, Lodon, https://www.digital-futures-for-children.net/smartphone-policies (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[72] RCPCH (2024), Build screen time around family activities, not the other way round, parents told, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/build-screen-time-around-family-activities-not-other-way-round-parents-told (accessed on 20 December 2024).
[78] Reich, S. et al. (2025), “Media and Parenting: Current Findings and Future Directions”, Handbook of Children and Screens, pp. 379-385, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5_52.
[60] Reich, S. and S. Madigan (2025), “Introduction to the Section on Parenting in the Digital Age”, Handbook of Children and Screens, pp. 371-377, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5_51.
[46] Sabri, N. et al. (2023), “Challenges of Moderating Social Virtual Reality”, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581329/SUPPL_FILE/3544548.3581329-TALK-VIDEO.MP4.
[11] Schneider, B., Y. Amichai-Hamburger and A. Lonigro (2020), “Adolescent online friendships”, in Online Peer Engagement in Adolescence, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429468360-3.
[55] Selwyn, N. (2019), “Banning mobile phones in schools: beneficial or risky? Here’s what the evidence says”, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/banning-mobile-phones-in-schools-beneficial-or-risky-heres-what-the-evidence-says-119456 (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[57] Smale, W., R. Hutcheson and C. Russo (2021), “Cell Phones, Student Rights, and School Safety: Finding the Right Balance”, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Vol. 195, pp. 49-64, https://doi.org/10.7202/1075672ar (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[77] Stoilova, M., M. Bulger and S. Livingstone (2024), “Do parental control tools fulfil family expectations for child protection? A rapid evidence review of the contexts and outcomes of use”, Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 18/1, pp. 29-49, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2023.2265512.
[66] Swider-Cios, E., A. Vermeij and M. Sitskoorn (2023), “Young children and screen-based media: The impact on cognitive and socioemotional development and the importance of parental mediation”, Cognitive Development, Vol. 66, p. 101319, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGDEV.2023.101319.
[81] Third, A. and L. Moody (2021), Our Rights in the Digital World A Report on the Children’s Consultations to inform UNCRC General Comment 25.
[35] UNICEF (2021), Adolescent Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Report, Innocenti Global Office of Research and Foresight, https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/adolescent-perspectives-artificial-intelligence-report (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[51] Van Ouytsel, J. et al. (2016), “Adolescent cyber dating abuse victimization and its associations with substance use, and sexual behaviors”, Public Health, Vol. 135, pp. 147-151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.02.011.
[69] Vedechkina, M. and F. Borgonovi (2021), A Review of Evidence on the Role of Digital Technology in Shaping Attention and Cognitive Control in Children, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.611155.
[26] Wilson, C. (2024), Teen social media ban might backfire, risk harming youth: expert, https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/18/teen-social-media-ban-young-australians-risk-harm/ (accessed on 9 January 2025).
[76] Wood, S. (2024), “Impact of regulation on children’s digital lives”.
[67] World Health Organisation (2019), “Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep”, World Health Organization, p. 4, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325147/WHO-NMH-PND-2019.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y%0Ahttp://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311664%0Ahttps://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/325147 (accessed on 13 June 2024).
← 1. “Digital Service Providers” refers to any natural or legal person that provides products and services, electronically and at a distance (OECD, 2021[4]).
← 2. In line with this observation, the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment recognises that “actions and policies for children in the digital environment should be age-appropriate, tailored to accommodate developmental differences, and reflect that children may experience different kinds of access to digital technologies based on their socio-cultural and socio-economic backgrounds and the level of parental, guardian, and carer engagement” (OECD, 2021[4]).
← 3. Digital citizenship refers to the responsible and ethical use of technology and digital tools to engage with society, participate in online activities, and interact with others. It encompasses a range of skills, behaviours, and understandings that individuals need to navigate the digital world responsibly.
← 4. The Index of Self-Efficacy in Digital Competencies in PISA 2022 is calculated using a set of specific questions aimed at evaluating students' confidence in performing a variety of tasks related to digital technology and the Internet. The questions measure the extent to which students feel capable of completing tasks such as like creating a presentation or organising files, troubleshooting computer errors or finding effective ways to use software, designing or modifying digital content, managing online discussions or working on shared documents. Questions related to time management while using digital technologies were not directly included in this index, as the focus remains on technical and problem-solving skills rather than behavioural aspects like managing screen time.
← 5. Active parental mediation is measured with questions such as “Do you speak with your child about what they do on their mobile phone? and questions on co-use of digital resources (e.g., “Do you help your child when something is difficult to do or find?”).