From Nanny Laws to Corporate Accountability: What Parents Need to Know About Real Online Safety Reform
- The White Hatter
- Jul 27
- 6 min read
When it comes to protecting kids online, many parents are told to follow a familiar checklist: delay access, install filters, monitor screen time, and support age-gating laws that block access to social media or certain websites until a child reaches a certain age. These actions can feel practical, especially when you're trying to manage risk in an increasingly digital world.
This type of end user focused legislation is often referred to as “nanny legislation.” These laws aim to restrict what children and teens can do online, based on the belief that limiting their access will solve the problem. While some of these measures can be helpful when used appropriately, the real issue is when they become the primary or only strategy.
At The White Hatter, we believe it’s time to broaden the focus. Rather than relying solely on measures that place the burden on families, we should be pushing for legislation that addresses the design and business practices of the tech companies themselves. In other words, we need to move beyond reactive rules that regulate youth behaviour and start creating structural policies that regulate corporate responsibility.
Nanny legislation refers to policies that place the onus of online safety primarily on the individual user, in this case, children and their families. Some common examples include:
Age-gating laws that ban youth under 16 from accessing social media
Mandatory parental consent for app downloads
Increased surveillance of children’s online activity
To many parents, these steps feel like responsible digital parenting. They’re simple, direct, and give the impression that something is being done. But these laws can create a false sense of security.
As an Australian tech expert Chris McLaren stated recently:
“I may be in the minority on this view, but as a father of 2 kids, a 25-year technologist and former Chief Customer and Digital Officer of the Queensland Government, I'd like to share my thoughts on the planned internet age restrictions in Australia. In short, it's bad policy and won't work.
1.Age verification is trivially bypassed through borrowed accounts or VPNs. Tech-savvy teens will always find workarounds, making enforcement ineffective from day one. Worse, this creates a market for fake accounts and identity services - criminalizing normal teenage behaviour.
2. It Drives Activity Underground. Instead of stopping young people from going online, bans push them toward anonymous platforms and unregulated spaces where risks are actually higher and safety protections are weaker.
3. Decentralized Platforms Can't Be Controlled. Decentralized online platforms are growing rapidly - and have no central authority to enforce regulations. Kids will simply migrate to platforms that governments literally cannot regulate or shut down
4. It Doesn't Block Harmful Content. Age bans won't stop access to pornography, violence or extremist content - much of which exists on sites with no age verification whatsoever. The most harmful content is often the least regulated.
5. Universal Identity Verification Creates New Risks. To enforce age bans, EVERYONE will need to verify their identity with official documents or other assurance services. This creates significant privacy, security and inclusion concerns.
6. It Ignores the Real Problem. The issue isn't that young people are online - it's that platforms are designed to exploit attention and harvest data. Age restrictions don't fix algorithmic manipulation or predatory design.
7. It Harms Vulnerable Youth Most. Isolated, minority, neurodivergent individuals and those from dysfunctional homes often depend on digital communities for safety, connection, peer support and education. Banning them removes critical lifelines.
8. It Undermines Digital Literacy. Rather than teaching young people to navigate digital spaces safely and critically, bans create a false sense of security. It also ignores the incredible educational value that these platforms provide to people of all ages.
9. Surveillance Infrastructure Concerns. What begins as age verification for children can easily expand into broader content control, adult access restrictions and normalized digital ID tracking- a concerning precedent for citizen rights.
10. Better Solutions Exist. Instead of bans, we need platform design standards, improved digital literacy education, better parental tools and regulations targeting harmful business practices rather than user access.
It's also worth noting that mainstream media - print and TV - have been strong advocates for this ban. Social media has disrupted their industry like no other, so any "small win" that might limit digital platforms will be embraced.” (1)
Note
Specific to item #1 , in less than 24hrs after the UK very recently passed their Online Safety Act requiring age verification, users of Discord found a way to bypass it’s age gating process (2)
Specific to item #5, just this week it was reported out that that there was a "Tea App Breach" that exposed 72,000 Selfies, ID Photos (drivers licences) and Other User Images used to confirm age on signing up (FB won't let us attach a link so just search it online)
Nanny legislation also miss a deeper truth that youth and teens aren’t the ones designing platforms that promote problematic habituated content, harvest personal data, or prioritize engagement over well-being, tech companies are!
We understand why so many families lean on tools like age restrictions, screen time rules, or monitoring software. Parents and caregivers are doing their best to navigate a system that often feels hostile to their efforts. It makes sense to look for ways to protect kids from exposure to harmful or inappropriate content.
But that’s exactly why we need to stop treating youth as the primary risk and start treating exploitative design as the real issue. These platforms are built with the intention of capturing attention and maximizing data extraction, often without regard for how that impacts children’s emotional, cognitive, or social development.
Corporate accountability legislation means shifting the responsibility from families to the companies that design, build, and profit from digital environments. This approach doesn’t replace parental involvement, it supports it by requiring that safer, more ethical choices are built into platforms from the beginning.
This kind of legislation could:
Mandate safety-by-design practices to identify and mitigate risks before products launch
Prohibit algorithmic targeting of minors, especially with sensational, harmful, or manipulative content
Ban dark patterns that mislead or pressure users—including kids—into staying online longer or giving up their data
Require independent audits of algorithms and moderation systems to check for harm
Enforce privacy-by-default for youth accounts and restrict unnecessary data collection
Impose real consequences, including fines, when companies fail to meet these standards
These are not radical ideas. They’re about applying the same standard of care we already expect in industries like transportation, food safety, and consumer protection.
If corporate accountability is more effective, why don’t we see more legislation that targets the tech companies themselves?
The answer is “political” reality.
It’s easier for lawmakers to legislate what kids can and can’t do than to challenge billion-dollar companies. Nanny laws:
Shift the burden from corporations to families
Appear “tough” on youth safety without confronting industry power
Require less technical understanding of platform design and mechanics
React to public pressure without making structural changes
They’re simple, politically safe, and emotionally resonant. But they don’t address the actual architecture of harm.
“Safety by design” is a proactive approach to online safety that builds safeguards into the system rather than patching problems after harm occurs. Under this framework, platforms would be expected to:
Evaluate how new features could be misused by or harmful to youth
Minimize data collection to only what’s necessary
Set default privacy settings that are youth-friendly
Provide clear and easy-to-access reporting tools
Eliminate design tricks that nudge kids into compulsive use
This isn’t about banning youth from the internet. It’s about creating platforms that respect their developmental stage, protect their privacy, and prioritize their well-being.
This doesn’t mean that all protective tools for families are bad or that nanny laws are always wrong. In some cases, age-appropriate limits or opt-in consent mechanisms can support safer experiences. However, they shouldn’t be the only tools in the toolkit.
Without corporate accountability, we’re asking families to do all the heavy lifting in a digital world designed to work against them.
We cannot regulate our way to a safer internet by only telling kids what not to do. Real protection comes from holding powerful companies responsible for how they build and operate the platforms kids use every day.
It’s time to stop treating youth as the problem and start demanding structural change. If we want an online world that’s worthy of our kids, we need to move past nanny laws and start pushing for real reform, where safety isn’t a patch, it’s a principle built in from the beginning.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
