The internet can be an extremely fun place for teenagers, as they can use it to communicate with their friends, exchange funny messages, share interests, and play games.
But sometimes the fun comes to an abrupt end because of someone else, and then everyone starts to wonder again if the internet is too dangerous for children.
Parents are very concerned about digital dangers and exposure to pornography. Teens, on the other hand, often think that adults are overreacting. While there are many bad scenarios on the subject, a new study suggests that trying to protect teens from bad experiences online may not be the smartest or most effective move.
In the Journal of Pediatrics study, researchers asked 515 British teenagers and their parents about the filters they have installed, which are designed to monitor and block children’s online activities. Although the four major internet service providers in the UK use filters by default and the technology comes with all new household internet connections, almost one in six teenagers in the study said they had at least one significant negative experience online.
The results, says Andrew K. Przybylski, the study's lead author and an experimental psychologist at the Oxford Internet Institute, should prompt us to reconsider the value of filters.
Przybylski asked study participants if they had seven different types of negative experiences or at least one negative experience online in the past year. The teens, all between the ages of 12 and 15, most often reported being contacted by a stranger who wanted to be friends. They also reported someone else using password to access personal information or their identity. Other negative experiences included being pressured to send photos to someone and being embarrassed by sexual content.
Przybylski says that while filters can be helpful for younger children, they may not be the right solution for teenagers. Their use is based on two unproven assumptions: That when teens encounter something online that could be distressing, it can automatically harm them, and that blocking certain elements solves the problem. But the research, Przybylski argues, does not provide clear evidence that this belief is true.
Instead, Przybylski says that if we want to protect teens from bad online interactions, it's essential to help them gain the right knowledge to manage these kinds of risks. This starts with them having a good sense of who among their friends and family they can trust to share their experiences without fear of a critical response. Seeking supportive feedback after an unpleasant interaction can help them better cope with these difficult feelings.
Teens, Przybylski says, could also try “experimenting with trusting their parents” by talking to them about what they’re doing online. This could be done by showing them, for example, their favorite Snapchat filters, so that parents are better prepared to discuss the various thrills and potential threats of online life. There are also common-sense measures teens can take, such as not sharing their passwords or making public posts revealing images and personal information.
Using filters that block teens from unwanted content is unlikely to work effectively. And as Przybylski says, it reflects a worldview in which young people are inherently fragile and should remain protected from negative experiences until they reach the magical age of 18.
