Support | Tip | Donate

Smartphone-Free PSA Review

The White Hatter
Sep 30
5 min read

There are countless public service announcements (PSAs) aimed at parents and caregivers about kids, online safety, and smartphones. Many repeat the same claims.

Brandon from The White Hatter team recently took time to review a new PSA that advocates for raising kids to be smartphone-free.

The key questions we ask are:

Do these claims hold up under scrutiny?
Are the suggestions realistic in everyday family life?
And most importantly, would they actually prevent harm?

For this review, we are looking at the Smartphone Free Childhood US – "Let's Change The Norm" Campaign. Their objective is to encourage parents to delay when they give kids a phone because of online dangers (1).

Claim 1: There Is Inappropriate Adult Content Online

This is nothing new.

Even before the smartphone era (and still today), intermediate and middle school students often talked about things that were clearly not age-appropriate.

Others might stumble across a National Geographic magazine or a health book in the library with photos of unclothed people from different cultures, material meant for learning. Yet, in the hands of kids, it quickly became the source of endless giggles and gossip.

Claim 2: There Are Too Many Hateful People Online

The level of public decorum (both online and offline) can feel absent over the last decade. Some schools have even faced protests on a wide range of topics, including issues that may not be appropriate for children at younger ages. In response, governments have established legal buffer zones to keep demonstrators away from school grounds (2-3)

On a related note, we’ve been in high schools where boys said to girls, “Your body, my choice.”

Concerns about young people being exposed to hate speech online are understandable, but the reality is that these risks extend far beyond the internet. Kids can encounter the same hostility and harmful rhetoric in almost any space they spend time... whether online or offline.

Claim 3: Anyone Can Buy Drugs Online

For a kid to get drugs online, they need money, a credit card, or cryptocurrency. Most major platforms already filter out drug sales, so a student would need strong intent to bypass safeguards. Government agencies take down these websites, and therefore, accessing them requires knowledge and sometimes personal networking to get an invite to these places. It's not like Silk Road is going to be the first hit on Google. More likely is that the student builds a relationship with a local supplier via a private chat messaging app.

In reality, it’s usually much easier to get a list of substances from a local dealer or, unfortunately, from another student at school. There were certainly examples in 2025 of that happening.

11 Kids Hospitalized After Eating Marijuana Edibles at Elementary School: Reports (4)
Seguin student arrested, allegedly brought cocaine to school (5)
Woman accused of selling meth across the street from Lincoln elementary school (6)
Cocaine found inside elementary school on the first day back, employee charged (7)

Claim 4: “Mean Kids”

This logic doesn’t hold up.

If the problem is “mean kids,” then banning smartphones won’t solve it. Those same kids exist at school and offline, where their harmful speech may even be protected under free expression.

Mean kids online → don't have a phone

so

Mean kids at school → don't go to school

Avoiding the mean kids does not prevent their harmful speech or gossip.

Claim 5: Bad Guys

The russian hacker bit is funny, but the reasoning here falls apart when applied consistently. By that logic, no child should ever ride a bike past the end of the driveway... after all, someone can steal it.

Of course, there are certain places where leaving a bike unattended clearly carries more risk. But even in safer areas, the smarter move isn’t a total ban on riding; it’s investing in a bike lock. That way, I can’t just walk up and take it.

Summary Thoughts

The intent behind these safety messages to keep kids safe are admirable. But, walking home, taking the bus, hanging out with friends: any activity outside parental supervision involves some risk. That’s why it makes sense to set limits, create rules, and teach personal protection skills so kids can handle aggressors or bad actors.

This PSA would be more effective if it framed the advice as, “Don’t let kids go online late at night during bedtime,” rather than calling for a total smartphone ban. Such guidance promotes safety, health, time management, and overall well-being. In fact, the PSA would make a far stronger case by arguing for limiting device access at inappropriate times (especially bedtime) rather than pushing for an unrealistic blanket ban.

In addition, problems raised aren’t unique to smartphones. The same challenges existed in the millennial home-PC era, laptops, Chromebooks, and gaming consoles all connected to the internet. The risks and responsibilities remain the same.

Because let’s be honest: being smartphone-free doesn’t magically stop bad things from happening. It works better to help parents avoid giving kids unrestricted, unlimited access to the internet, where they can go anywhere and do anything without guidance. If a family is just handing over a brand-new phone with no rules or oversight? Sure, maybe a ban makes sense for that family. But for families willing to put in the effort: establishing rules, policies, and ongoing guidance, it’s no different than teaching kids how to navigate the public world.

There are always safer and less safe spaces. A kid walking home, taking the bus, or riding a bike has some inherent risk. That’s why most parents set rules and expectations to prepare kids for situations that might be uncomfortable, inappropriate, or even dangerous.

So do we hide kids away until they’re 18 and then throw them into the world unprepared? That’s not realistic. Yet these “ban it all” messages often suggest that any risk is unacceptable. That’s not how life works. Simple answers to complex problems feel appealing, but they rarely hold up under scrutiny. And they don’t prepare young people for reality.

Thanks for reading—and for supporting this kind of critical look at PSAs. If you found this helpful, like and share the video. Hopefully, it helps families better understand and evaluate these kinds of safety messages.

References