Why Polls and Headlines Can Sometimes Distort How We Think About Kids and Technology
- The White Hatter
- 5 hours ago
- 5 min read
As our friend Matthew Johnson from MediaSmarts Canada reminds us, “Media have social and political implications.” That statement couldn’t be more accurate when it comes to shaping public perception about youth, technology, and social media.
Over the past year and a half, most media coverage on this topic has leaned heavily negative. While some of these concerns are valid, many of the stories are based on research with small sample sizes or questionable methodologies, results that amount to statistical noise. Positive or balanced stories rarely make headlines, mainly because bad news drives clicks. This “bad news bias” has a measurable impact on how the public views technology and youth.
We also need to acknowledge that advocates of “delay” or “ban” movements have done an excellent job coordinating their messaging internationally across both traditional and digital media. Their campaigns are emotionally persuasive and widely shared. The challenge is that this type of messaging influences public opinion polls, which measure sentiment rather than reflect the full scope of evidence-based research.
Even when those opinions conflict with credible longitudinal studies showing mixed outcomes (1)(2)(3), they still shape headlines and policy conversations. This doesn’t mean parent and caregiver’s concerns are misplaced, there are real risks online, but it does mean we should be cautious about forming national policy from emotional narratives alone.
The Ipsos Poll: A Case Study in Framing (4)
A recent 2025 Canadian Ipsos opinion poll reported that:
81% of Canadian adults agree that social media harms outweigh the benefits for kids.
Only 20% believe children have adequate protection on social media.
94% say social media shouldn’t sell or share kids’ data.
84% say kids should be at least 16 to join platforms like TikTok or Snapchat.
81% say government should set a minimum age for access.
The poll was funded by the organization Un-Plugged, which has since promoted the findings online. At first glance, the results seem clear, but on closer examination we found that every question was framed negatively toward social media use by children and teens, which affects how respondents answer. (5)
What’s Wrong With the Questions asked in this poll?
Polled Opinion #1: “Social media harms outweigh the benefits for kids.”
Problem: The question assumes a trade-off and primes respondents toward a negative conclusion.
Better wording: “Overall, how would you describe the impact of social media on children and teens?”
(Answer scale: Very positive to Very negative)
Polled Opinion #2: “Children have adequate protection on social media.”
Problem: “Adequate” is vague and subjective.
Better wording: “How effective do you think current safety and privacy protections on social media are for children and teens?”
(Answer scale: Very effective to Very ineffective)
Polled Opinion #3: “Social media shouldn’t sell or share kids’ data.”
Problem: Morally loaded phrasing invites automatic agreement.
Better wording: “How acceptable do you think it is for social media companies to use children’s data for advertising or personalization?”
(Answer scale: Always acceptable to Never acceptable)
Polled Opinion #4: “Kids should be at least 16 to join social media.”
Problem: The question provides an arbitrary threshold without rationale.
Better wording: “What do you think is an appropriate minimum age for a child or teen to have their own social media account?”
(Open or multiple-choice options)
Polled Opinion #5: “The government should require a minimum age for social media access.”
Problem: Invokes regulatory sentiment and political bias.
Better wording: “Who do you think should decide the minimum age for social media use?”
(Options: Parents, platforms, government, schools, none)
These reframed questions remove emotional and moral triggers, producing results that would better capture public sentiment instead of knee-jerk reaction.
Research from polling authorities like Pew Research and AAPOR shows that emotionally loaded wording, moral framing, and unbalanced response scales can strongly bias results. When question framing or sampling are flawed, poll outcomes can differ sharply from what credible, peer-reviewed studies show.
Public concern absolutely matters, but opinion data should complement, not replace, scientific evidence. Before polls shape parenting norms or policy proposals, we need to ensure they’re asking fair and balanced questions
In March 2023, another Ipsos poll for Global News found that 58% of Canadians believed violence had increased in their communities since the pandemic, and 79% thought it would continue to rise. Yet Statistics Canada’s 2024 data showed a 4% decrease in the police-reported crime rate and a decline in the Crime Severity Index. (6)
Why the gap? Because violent incidents dominate headlines. If it bleeds, it leads. During Darren’s 30-year policing career, he saw this pattern repeatedly, perception shaped more by emotion and exposure than by facts and evidence.
The same thing happens with youth and technology. When headlines amplify fear and outrage, they often drown out the quiet but important truth that “most” young people use technology in positive, creative, and socially connected ways.
Parent and caregiver fears about technology are understandable. The internet has real dangers such as online exploitation, exposure to harmful content, and privacy violations are legitimate issues that demand attention and that we speak to hear at the White Hatter. However, fear alone doesn’t protect youth and teens. Balanced digital literacy, engaged parenting, and evidence-informed policies do.
The goal isn’t to downplay risk, but to approach it with proportion and context. Youth and teens deserve guidance grounded in fact, not panic.
Missing Youth Voices
This recent poll, like many others, completely excluded youth and teens, especially those aged 13 to 18, who are directly affected by these discussions. If we’re making decisions that impact them, shouldn’t we include them in the conversation?
Research programs like EU Kids Online (7) and UNICEF’s “Voices of Youth” (8) show that when youth and teens are included, we gain a more accurate understanding of how they use technology, how they self-regulate, and what supports they actually need. Young people can teach us a great deal if we are willing to listen.
Yes, social media companies must be held accountable for safety, security, and privacy. Yes, policy reform and legislation in Canada is necessary, and yes, social media can have negative effects on “some” youth. However, to claim that “social media harms outweigh the benefits” ignores the full spectrum of credible evidence. The impact of social media depends on how it’s used, who is using it, and why.
Before we let polls and headlines dictate national policy, or shape how parents and caregivers respond at home, we should pause, question how those opinions were formed, and ensure that we’re guided by facts, not fear.
Lastly, there’s a double standard worth noting. Many in the “delay is the way” movement argue that research funded by social media companies should be dismissed due to conflict of interest. If we accept that logic, then transparency should apply across the board. This poll was funded by an organization that actively promotes a “delay” approach, which raises similar questions about impartiality.
Transparency isn’t about dismissing results, it’s about understanding where they come from and weighing them accordingly. Consistency and evidence builds trust, no matter what side of the debate you’re on.
Digital Food for Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear. Facts Not Emotions. Enlighten Not Frighten. Know Tech Not No Tech.
References:
