Why We Shouldn’t Depend On Legislation To Support A Parent’s Ability To Say “NO”
- The White Hatter
- 8 minutes ago
- 8 min read
One of the arguments we have heard from some parents, caregivers, advocacy groups, and organizations in support of the newly introduced Canadian Bill C-34, particularly the age-gating provisions, is that it helps reinforce parental decisions about prohibiting technology and social media use. This perspective was also reflected in a recent New York Times article, where some parents expressed support for age based restrictions because they believed the law would make it easier to say “no” to their children when it comes to social media access (1).
Viewed through this lens, the legislation serves as more than a regulatory measure, it becomes an external authority that parents and caregivers can point to when setting boundaries. Rather than saying, “Our family has decided that you are not ready for social media yet,” a parent can instead say, “You can’t have it because the law doesn’t allow it.” We understand why this can be appealing.
For many families, saying no to a smartphone, social media account, messaging app, or online platform can become an exhausting and ongoing negotiation. Children may point to friends who already have access, cite social pressures, argue that restrictions are unfair, or insist that everyone else is being allowed to participate. Over time, some parents and caregivers can begin to feel isolated, worn down, or uncertain about maintaining boundaries in the face of persistent pushback. Yes, the pressure is real.
Parents and caregivers are not simply competing with their child, they are often navigating peer influence, sophisticated marketing campaigns, powerful technology companies, social trends, and digital environments specifically designed to attract and retain young users. In many cases, they are also navigating co-parenting challenges, blended families, school expectations surrounding technology, and concerns that limiting access may affect their child’s social connections. Given these realities, it is understandable why some parents and caregivers may welcome legislation that appears to make these decisions easier.
Parents and caregivers are being asked to manage risks that they did not create, within systems they did not design, and often cannot fully control. We have long argued that technology companies should be held accountable for the design choices they make and the risks they create for young users. However, accountability for platform design and accountability for parenting are not mutually exclusive, both can and should exist at the same time.
In these circumstances, age gating legislation can appear attractive because it shifts some of the responsibility away from the parent and onto an external authority. Rather than saying, “I am choosing not to allow this right now,” a parent or caregivers can instead say, “The government won’t allow it.” The law becomes a way to reinforce a position that the parent or caregiver may already hold, but is struggling to enforce.
While this may provide short term relief, it also raises an important question, “Are we supporting parents and caregivers in exercising their role as parents, or are we relying on legislation as a crutch to compensate for the growing difficulty some families experience in setting and maintaining boundaries around technology?”
Youth and teens are often far more observant than adults give them credit for. Not only do they pay close attention to what we say, but they pay even closer attention to what we do.
When a parent or caregiver tells their child, “You can’t have social media because the law says so,” many young people will quickly notice an apparent inconsistency. They may respond with comments such as:
“You text while driving even though the law says you shouldn’t.”
“You drive over the speed limit even though the law says you shouldn’t.”
“You jaywalk even though the law says you shouldn’t.”
“You ride your bike without a helmet even though the law says you shouldn’t.”
Whether these examples are fair or not, they illustrate an important point, young people often evaluate rules through the lens of consistency. If adults selectively follow laws when it is convenient, youth may reasonably ask why this particular law should be treated differently.
The conversation can then shift away from the original issue and become a debate about fairness, hypocrisy, and whether rules apply equally to everyone.
This is one of the challenges of relying on legislation to justify a parenting decision. Laws can establish legal boundaries, but they do not automatically create understanding, trust, or acceptance. Young people are more likely to respect a boundary when they understand the reasoning behind it and when they see the adults in their lives modelling the same commitment to responsible behaviour.
A parent who says, “Our family has decided that social media is not right for you at this stage, and here is why,” is often standing on firmer ground than a parent who relies exclusively on, “Because the law says so.”
Children and teens learn as much from what we model as from what we mandate. When our actions align with our expectations, our credibility increases. When they do not, youth and teens are often the first to notice.
Because of this fact, the broader question then becomes, “Are we helping parents and caregivers develop the confidence and skills to explain, guide, and enforce family values, or are we encouraging them to outsource those difficult conversations to government legislation?” While laws may establish minimum standards for society, healthy parenting still requires something more powerful, that being trust, consistency, communication, and the willingness to explain not just what the rule is, but why it exists.
The question for us is not whether laws have a role to play, clearly the “right ones” do. Laws establish standards, create accountability, and can help address harms that individual families cannot solve on their own. The more important question is whether a specific law is the right tool for the problem, or whether stronger platform design requirements, transparency measures, enforcement mechanisms, and parent support initiatives would be more effective at addressing the actual harms young people face online.
Over the past several decades, parenting has shifted in many positive ways. Most parents and caregivers today strive to be more communicative, emotionally responsive, and collaborative than previous generations, something commonly known as “collaborative parenting”. Children are encouraged to express their opinions, share their feelings, and participate in family discussions. These are healthy developments that can strengthen relationships and help children develop important communication skills, while also recognizing child rights.
However, somewhere along the way, collaboration has sometimes been interpreted as requiring agreement from the child before a decision can be made. That is not collaboration, instead, it can represent a gradual shift from parent guided decision making toward child determined decision making.
True collaborative parenting means listening to children, considering their perspectives, validating their feelings, and explaining decisions. However, it does not require parents and caregivers to surrender decision making authority. Parents and caregivers can listen without agreeing, they can empathize without giving permission, and they can validate feelings without changing a boundary.
When collaboration gradually shifts into a situation where the child effectively determines the outcome, parents can begin to feel powerless when faced with requests related to technology. In those circumstances, legislation may feel less like a public policy solution and more like a substitute for parental authority. This distinction is important because disappointment is not the same thing as harm.
A child who is disappointed by a boundary is not necessarily being harmed by that boundary. Learning to hear “not yet” or “no” is a normal and important part of development. Age appropriate limits can help children build frustration tolerance, patience, resilience, emotional regulation, and an understanding that not every desire can be immediately satisfied.
Of course, what this looks like should vary depending on the child. A nine year old, a thirteen year old, and a sixteen year old require different levels of explanation, supervision, negotiation, and independence. Effective parenting is not a one size fits all, it should be adapted to a child’s age, maturity, temperament, developmental needs, and demonstrated responsibility. A parent or caregiver can say:
“I understand why you want this.”
“I understand that many of your friends have it.”
“I know you’re disappointed.”
“My answer is still no, and here’s why.”
That is not authoritarian parenting, that’s collaborative parenting combined with parental leadership.
We strongly support efforts to hold technology companies accountable for the design choices they make and the risks they create. We support meaningful action that requires platforms to build safer products, improve transparency, address harmful design features, and place the well being of young users ahead of engagement metrics.
Our concern is that age gating legislation may unintentionally reinforce, for some, the idea that parents need governments to establish boundaries that they already possess the authority to create within their own homes. In doing so, we risk shifting the conversation away from helping parents build confidence in their parenting decisions and toward the belief that external restrictions are the primary solution.
The goal should not be to replace parental leadership with government authority, and it shouldn’t be to leave parents and caregivers alone against powerful technology companies. The goal should be to support parents and caregivers while also requiring platforms to create safer, more accountable digital environments for young users.
In our view, the strongest protection for children has never been a law alone. Laws, corporate accountability, schools, and community organizations can play a role. However, informed, engaged, and confident parents and caregivers remain one of the most important protective factors in a child’s life.
Parents and caregivers do not need legislation to give them permission to parent. What many parents and caregivers need is support, practical strategies, reliable information, and the confidence to make decisions that reflect the needs of their own child and family. Unfortunately, when such support and information is provided, even when done so for free, it has been our experience that the vast majority of parents and caregivers do not take advantage of it. Those who do, are often not the cohort of parents or caregivers who need it most.
Parenting has never been easy, and raising children in a highly connected onlife world has introduced challenges that previous generations never had to navigate. Parents and caregivers are often balancing competing pressures from peers, schools, technology companies, social trends, and sometimes even other adults in their child’s life. It is understandable that many would welcome a law that appears to make difficult decisions easier.
However, one of the most important lessons youth and teens can learn is that healthy boundaries are a normal part of life. Parents and caregivers play a critical role in helping children develop that understanding. This does not require parents and caregivers to be authoritarian, inflexible, or dismissive. It requires them to be present, engaged, informed, and willing to lead.
Effective parenting is not about controlling every decision a youth or teen makes, nor is it about allowing children to determine every outcome. It is about listening to their perspectives, acknowledging their feelings, explaining decisions, and providing guidance, while still accepting the responsibility that comes with being the parent or caregiver. As we like to say, be your child’s best parents and not their best friend, there is a difference.
A child will not always like or agree with the boundaries that are set for them. They may feel frustrated, disappointed, upset, or even angry when they are told no. However, those emotional reactions do not automatically mean the boundary is unfair, inappropriate, or harmful.
In fact, a part of healthy childhood development involves learning how to cope with disappointment, tolerate frustration, and navigate limits that are established for their safety and well being. Experiencing reasonable boundaries, and learning to manage the emotions that sometimes accompany them, helps children develop resilience, self-regulation, and the ability to handle challenges they will inevitably encounter throughout life.
Parental love and authority are not opposing forces, the most effective parenting often combines both. Youth and teens benefit when they know they are loved, heard, respected, and supported. They also benefit when they know that the adults in their lives are willing to make difficult decisions, set appropriate boundaries, and provide leadership when needed.
Technology will continue to evolve, new platforms will emerge, and new risks and opportunities will appear. While laws, schools, and technology companies all have important roles to play, confident, engaged, and informed parents and caregivers will continue to be one of the most powerful protective factors in a child’s life, as is their ability to say “NO” when appropriate and reasonable to do so.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
Reference:
