๐ฃ๐ต๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป ๐บ๐๐๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ฒ. ๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ปโ๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐?
Following on from my recent post about โchild-proof lidsโ and safety by design (and the response to it) Iโve been thinking about other parallels.
In the UK, we already accept, almost without debate, that physical products must meet general safety standards to protect consumers, and that products intended for children must meet additional child-safety standards before they can be sold.
For example, toys and childrenโs products must comply with specific safety regulations and be tested and certified before they reach the market.
Toys.
Bicycles & scooters
Sports equipment
Manufacturers must assess and demonstrate that these products meet essential safety requirements before sale. If they donโt, they can be removed from the market.
That is protection by design.
We donโt ban toys because some could be dangerous.
We require safer materials, safer construction, age-appropriate design and clear labelling upfront.
The same principle runs through:
โข ๐๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฑ-๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฎ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ด
โข ๐๐ด๐ฒ-๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ถ๐น๐บ๐, ๐ง๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ด๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐
โข ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป
not to stop children playing, exploring or using these products.
It exists to reduce foreseeable risk for vulnerable users.
Now, compare that with the digital spaces used daily by millions of children.; social media platforms, games and apps that profoundly shape attention, behaviour and wellbeing:
Where's the equivalent child-safety design standard?
Yes, the UK has taken steps through the Online Safety Act and the Childrenโs Code, which focus largely on harmful content, risk assessments and age assurance.
But we still do not treat major digital platforms as products that must meet clear, visible, child-safety design standards ๐๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ they are launched or widely used by children.
This isnโt about banning the internet for children.
It isnโt about banning smartphones.
It isnโt even about banning social media.
Itโs about asking for the digital equivalent of what we already expect elsewhere:
Child-safe-by-design products.
So perhaps the more useful question isnโt:
โ๐๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ-16๐ด?โ
But:
โ๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐น?โ
(Iโve been noticing how often this same safety-by-design logic shows up in everyday life. Iโll share some more parallels soon).
I'd welcome your thoughts.
