← La perspective familiale

La sécurité n’est pas l’absence de risque

Surveiller n’est pas protéger. La Dre Pamela Wisniewski explique ce que ratent les applications de contrôle parental, et pourquoi une famille gagne plus à faire confiance qu’à surveiller.

La Dre Wisniewski a reçu des honoraires pour cet entretien. Ses opinions, ainsi que les recherches citées, n’engagent qu’elle.

Portrait of Dr. Pamela Wisniewski
Dr. Pamela Wisniewski Chercheuse, International Computer Science Institute

Quinze ans qu’elle étudie la façon dont les familles composent avec la technologie, en écoutant celles et ceux qu’on laisse d’ordinaire en dehors de la discussion: les enfants.

Carton-titre de l’entretien, en anglais: Safety Isn't the Absence of Risk, avec en sous-titre Dr. Pamela Wisniewski on screen time, teens, and online safety

Écoute l’entretien en entier

Appuie sur lecture: la transcription s’ouvre et suit la conversation. Choisis une ligne pour sauter directement à ce passage.

L’entretien s’est déroulé en anglais: l’audio et la transcription ne sont pas traduits.

Suivre la transcriptionMasquer la transcription33 min

Extraits

You're on your phone all the time, so why are you telling me that I can't be? Technology can be both dangerous but also empowering. That's a paradigm that the tech companies want us to buy into. Stop treating teens like they're victims online. Meaning that they focus on what teens can't do online versus what they're allowed to do online.

Matt Ruhstaller

Hi, I'm Matt Ruhstaller. I'm a tech veteran with eighteen years at Google and a founding member of Allowed Online. In June of twenty twenty-six, we sat down with Pamela Wisniewski, a principal research scientist at the International Computer Science Institute and a former tenured associate professor at Vanderbilt and UCF. In our interview, we touched on a wide range of topics related to online safety, balancing oversight with independence, and what Dr. Wisniewski's research can tell us about the best way for families to approach these topics. At Allowed Online, we're focused on making the work that researchers like Dr. Wisniewski is doing actionable and accessible for parents. We hope you enjoy the conversation and look forward to bringing you more content like this in the future. Dr. Wisniewski, thank you. This is such an important topic, and it's really a privilege to have an expert in the field to kind of discuss these topics with today.

Dr. Wisniewski

Sure. First let me give you a little bit of background about me. So I'm a principal research scientist at the International Computer Science Institute, which is an independent research nonprofit affiliated with UC Berkeley. Prior to that, I was a professor at Vanderbilt University and the University of Central Florida. My research is in human-computer interaction at the intersection of social computing, how people use technology to connect with one another, privacy and online safety, the unintended consequences of when we go online to interact with others. And one of the things that I often remind people is that nobody goes online to be more private. We go online because we want to interact with others and expand our worldview. And that's not any different for our youth. And so the research that I do in human-computer interaction is very teen-centered. We do participatory design, co-design interviews, digital trace data analyses of what teens are doing online and how their parents are interacting with them to manage their online interactions with others. And this is research that I've been doing for almost fifteen years now. And I'd like to say that it's been a pleasure working with parents and teens to really understand what's going on, to be able to dispel some of those myths that we have about teens, technology use, and some of the risks to their mental health and safety.

Matt Ruhstaller

To kick us off, I'd like to open with a question about transparency and accountability. You've argued that monitoring kids without reciprocity damages trust. If a parental tool can show teens a summary of their own activity along with their parents' usage kind of side by side and never read the messages or content, would that address your concern?

Dr. Wisniewski

Yes, it would. Really the most important thing that we need to have from our kids is buy-in. They need to be part of the process. And I think one of the myths that we often portray about kids is that they're trying to do things that we don't want them to do, when in actuality, they're struggling just like we are as adults to manage their time and be intentional online. And so by giving that reciprocity and that buy-in, parents and teens can work together to collaboratively manage their digital use online.

Matt Ruhstaller

The market for parental control apps already has several players, and I'd like to get your thoughts maybe on the landscape. You've spent several years studying how families navigate technology and have evaluated many of the tools that exist. What do parental control apps most commonly get wrong or leave out, and what does research suggest that families need that the market has yet to deliver?

Dr. Wisniewski

Many of the existing parental control apps are heavily surveillance and restriction-based, meaning that they focus on what teens can't do online versus what they're allowed to do online. And it's really important that we understand that digital technology use can be beneficial as well as risky for teens. And we need to balance that so that we're mitigating risk while allowing meaningful engagement.

Matt Ruhstaller

In 2017, you found that 89% of parental control features enforced controls like you were just speaking of, while only 11% supported teen self-regulation. Your 2024 paper, It's Still Complicated, suggests that the market still hasn't closed that gap. What specific product design choices would you look for in an app to address that 11%, and what would it take to close the gap more meaningfully?

Dr. Wisniewski

I think one of the key points is that we need to treat teens as agents of their own online safety and the digital technology use, meaning finding ways to help raise self-awareness, so that they can do self-regulated behaviors. We need to shift that focus from younger children, where parents primarily have to manage and control what their kids are doing online, to giving teens more autonomy as they get older so that they can manage their own online behaviors and their usage. Because if we don't ever get to that shift where teens are learning how to do it themselves with the support of their parents, then we're doing a disservice to our youth.

Matt Ruhstaller

Such a great point. I think about that with my own kids, the purpose of parenting, it seems to me, is to raise a responsible adult. And so at some point you have to allow them to have some sort of responsibility and consequences and kind of learn how to manage themselves. I'd like to maybe zoom out a bit and get your thoughts on something that's been dominating the headlines kind of recently or maybe even less recently in the last few years. The correlation between smartphone adoption and the rise in adolescent mental health problems seems fairly robust, and I'm curious, where does the evidence actually get thin? Is it at the cause? Is it at the specific age thresholds, or is it maybe somewhere else?

Dr. Wisniewski

I think that's actually a misnomer because some of the more recent research shows that there's a decline in suicide rates and some of the statistics that people have been given about depression and anxiety among youth have been overstated. And there's also research by researchers like Candice Odgers or Amy Orben, that suggests that the correlation itself is actually pretty weak if not there at all. And it really just depends on the family and the kid too, because we can't look at global level statistics when we're talking about a child, right? So I think that's really where it breaks down, is that we tend to have this moral panic and this fear-based narrative around addiction and technology use for our kids that's really just not serving them well. Because what that does is it creates guilt and shame instead of coping mechanisms and ways to manage technology use in healthier, positive ways. And so really trying to get away from some of those fear-based negative narratives is the best thing that we can do for our kids. Instead of treating technology like a drug, treating it like a food, realizing that there's some foods that are unhealthy for us and that we need to have a healthy diet.

Matt Ruhstaller

You mentioned both guilt and shame in that answer, and I'm curious, if that applies to kids or if it applies also maybe to parents and other family members who are using smartphones and interacting with these technologies.

Dr. Wisniewski

That's a great question. I would actually say both. Kids feel like they're being bad because they can't manage their technology use. I know my own daughter gets mad at herself when she gets stuck in reels, right? And then parents, they feel like they're failures because they can't monitor everything their kid's doing online at all times. And they're also trying to manage their own screen time, and what technologies they're using because many of us have kids at home who are telling us, Well, you're on your phone all the time, so why are you telling me that I can't be? And so it really needs to be a family conversation of this is something that we all struggle with and that we can work together to find healthier habits and ways to manage how we engage with our phones and other digital technologies.

Matt Ruhstaller

Jonathan Haidt has argued for gating certain online content, notably social media. You have argued for more autonomy and transparency for kids. Ideas in opposition to each other, or is it possible to blend both for a positive outcome?

Dr. Wisniewski

I think the answer is complicated. And this is something that I've spoken about publicly. When the age bans came for pornographic sites and age verification, I spoke publicly that that was a beneficial thing because pornography online, by definition, should be age-gated to those who are of age. But I think social media is a different story. I know that we could say that, you know, social media is just all porn, but it's not. There's beneficial uses of social media, such as being able to connect with one's friends, being able to get social support. And we've done a number of research studies to show both the positive ways that teens use social media to get help and find resources, but also some of the ways that they encounter risks. And so right now, especially in the US, there's a kind of an arbitrary age gate of thirteen because of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and that kind of goes globally. But we're trying to increase those age limits, with bans of teens who are sixteen, or below sixteen. My concern is that the way in which we're treating teens and how they interact with other people online is so very different than how we're treating them in real life. We allow fifteen-year-olds to get a driver's permit and sixteen-year-olds to drive. There are sixteen-year-olds who are having sex and experimenting with risky behaviors that are somewhat developmentally appropriate for them to experience at that age level. At age eighteen they can enlist to go into the military. And so we have to be careful that we're not treating teens online like they have less agency and responsibility and skills to be able to protect themselves as we treat them how we treat them offline. Because it's sending the wrong message that we don't trust you, that you can't protect yourself, and that you can't develop these skills to navigate these spaces safely.

Matt Ruhstaller

I think that's such a good point, and although the ages and kind of privileges that come with those ages may be different in Europe, I think the point still stands. For here in Europe, a lot of kids can start drinking at 16, and we probably don't want them all to become alcoholics, but they need to learn kind of and be supervised so that they can learn how to manage that exposure and risk themselves. And so I think that really resonates.

Dr. Wisniewski

Yeah, and one of the things that I wanna say is that just by age-gating social media, it's not going to lead to the consequence that we're hoping for it to lead to. So instead of teens using the platforms that actually are more closely monitored, they're going to go to platforms that are less safe. It's going to give the online platforms a pass to be able to have ads that are more adult, like sexually mature, because they're going to say, Well, kids aren't allowed on the platforms. And we all know very well that teens are pretty tech-savvy and can find ways to get around them. So for instance, in the US, many smartphones already come pre-equipped with a VPN so that you can spoof what state you're in. So if you're in Texas, it's really easy to say that you're in New York to be able to bypass some of the age verification requirements. So we have to keep in mind that just because the goal is to keep teens safer by increasing the age limits for social media, that isn't necessarily based on the evidence of what's gonna actually happen when these age bans go into effect.

Matt Ruhstaller

Great point. Yeah, I think technology can be both dangerous but also empowering. And when I think about my own start kind of getting into technology, you know, at fifteen kind of learning how the phone system worked and poking at it and doing some hacking, obviously not something you should do, but that curiosity can lead to a career. That interest is very healthy, I think, for kids. And so, it seems very important to me to not throw the baby with the bathwater. You need to be able to draw both the positive effects of social media, of the internet in general, while kind of restricting some of the more dangerous or harmful aspects.

Dr. Wisniewski

I learned to type on AOL Instant Messenger. And so the ways in which we engage with technology become part of how we grow up and how we experience life.

Matt Ruhstaller

So a great segue, actually, to another question I wanted to ask you. So modern apps often have surprising capabilities. I'm thinking games like Roblox often have video or text chat that maybe parents aren't aware of that are built into those platforms. And I'm curious if it's worthwhile to have an opportunity to surface those capabilities and facilitate a conversation between kids and parents so that they can understand what's embedded in the platform, and perhaps how to respond to some things that might be unexpected.

Dr. Wisniewski

Definitely. One of the things that we see in research is this concept called practical obscurity, meaning that we often don't know what our kids are doing on their phones, what apps are installed, and then even at that more granular level, what features are available on those apps. A typical kid may use 15 different apps in a day or more, and it's really hard for a parent to be able to stay on top of the different types of apps used and the different benefits and risks available in each one. And so any tool that we can give parents to educate them so that they understand the different capabilities, as well as the different benefits and risks of the various platforms their kids are engaging on, it gives them that opportunity to have those conversations with their kids. For instance, my 11-year-old uses Roblox, but one of the things that we told her early on is, Don't use the chat-based features to communicate with strangers, just communicate with your friends. And so a lot of the parenting that we do isn't necessarily through the parental controls of each of the apps. We kind of centralize it to giving our kids a rulebook of heuristics to use that might generalize across platforms. So if there's a tool that can mimic some of that parenting that we do kind of ad hoc on a daily basis, that would definitely help us win the battle against trying to triage what all is out there. One of the things that we wanna be careful of is leaning too much into that stranger danger myth. We don't wanna teach kids that every stranger that they meet online is a predator. Because honestly, if we try to teach them that, they're gonna tune us out because they know better and over 50% of kids meet somebody new online, oftentimes in these gaming platforms. And so restricting the use of audio chat or private messaging that's really throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Because we wanna teach teens the tactics that a cyber groomer might use, so that they can develop protective strategies to be able to combat those. In our research, one of the things that we often cite is one in ten or more teens gets sexually solicited online. But one of the things that we often forget is that most of them say no. And so it's really important that we have open communication and that we have exit strategies, and that we're talking to our kids. And any kind of platform that allows us to have better more open communication with our kids to discuss these things in a non-judgmental way could be beneficial. Because you don't wanna punish your kid for talking to a stranger online. You want to teach them the safe ways in which to engage with a stranger online, and that you're always there for them if something happens that made you feel unsafe. One of the things that we see in the news more frequently these days are cases of sextortion, where a young teenage boy gets tricked into sending naked pictures of himself to a scammer or a bad actor. And the sad part is that they don't feel like they can go to anybody for help because they're gonna get in trouble. As parents, and as adults, it's our job to let teens know that if they get in trouble online, we're not gonna make it worse.

Matt Ruhstaller

The question these days is not a question of if in terms of kids on social media, but really when should they be on social media? And I'm curious to hear from you and your research, is there an evidence-based guideline for when to hand over control to them, when to allow them to start getting involved in these platforms? Or is this something that is just better left to parents to make a judgment call based on maybe the maturity of their own kid or what they know about their own child?

Dr. Wisniewski

It's a little bit of both. If we take a developmental perspective of youth and how they mature over time, the one thing that I think we're getting wrong is we're treating it like a switch. It can't be, okay, at the age of 16, now you can go on social media. So from a developmental perspective, the best approach is a scaffolded approach, where we give our kids who are younger access to technology in a more mediated, parental controlled way so that we can co-mediate and teach them how to use it. And as they get older, we slowly let go of the reins. So think about it, just like automobiles and transportation. Like, first, we give a kid a trike with training wheels and we eventually take those training wheels off when we see that they can balance. And then they're riding bikes, and now motorized scooters. And then eventually we give them driving lessons, and then one day they're driving and doing their own thing. And that's really the model that we need for social media and technology use. Because if we don't teach younger kids how to manage a mean comment in a group chat, with their friends, then when they're older and in middle school, which is like the most brutal time of development, right? They're gonna have a harder time being able to manage those things because they're not exposed in a way that gives them the opportunity to develop those skills. From a developmental perspective, taking that more scaffolded approach of teaching them over time and releasing the reins. But then there's also the individual needs of a particular child. And sometimes giving kids a cell phone or a digital tool helps give them the independence they need to be able to go to a summer camp, or be able to, I mean, there's kids with type one diabetes who need that to manage their health. So we can't set a broad rule and apply it to everybody because there's always going to be those edge cases where there's going to be a good reason to give one kid access to something that maybe another parent decides their kid's not ready for. So while we might create policies like cell phone bans in schools, we need to be able to have ways to have exceptions to those policies when a parent feels like there's a good need for that for their child.

Matt Ruhstaller

So getting back to one of the things we talked about, a lot of parental control apps build on the assumption that parents are doing the right thing and kids need oversight or restrictions, and we've talked about how that is not always the case. So given that, how would you design a parental control product that protects children from overly restrictive parents, considering that those parents are also the paying customers? How can we increase both agency and autonomy in a parental control product?

Dr. Wisniewski

There's all different kinds of parents out there. There's the more neglectful or indulgent parents who take a more laissez-faire approach. There's the authoritative parents who set high standards for their kids, but also, you know, support autonomy-seeking. And then there's the more authoritarian parents who are the do as I say, not as I do, and tend to be a little over-restrictive. And I can't say that we can change the parenting teen dynamic in families because those are so entrenched in cultural norms, but we can coach. So for instance, providing guidance to parents about best practices or making sure that there's some agency built into the design of products for teens to give them the ability to assent to monitoring. And that there's transparency so that it's not like we're installing a Trojan horse on their phones that then becomes something that just gets them in trouble. And so in many ways, showing parents the benefits of more collaborative and open approach, and that it actually works with their teens so that there's not constant battles at home, is probably the best way to engender that type of parenting within a family. I don't think we should preach, and I don't think that we should lead with judgment, because every family is different, and so we need to kinda meet them where they are, but then share those kind of best practices and standards, possibly by doing kind of a crowd-based approach of like letting families know what other families are doing. Because that level of social norming, to some extent, helps us all understand a little better what everybody else is doing to reevaluate maybe what I should do.

Matt Ruhstaller

That's such a great point, and you kind of predicted a follow-up question I had, which is many of the parents that I talk to talk about not knowing what the parental norms are, right? They know what their kids are asking for, but they don't really know what the average family, so to speak, is doing. I'm curious in, specifically related to research, is there research on community-level baselines, kind of knowing what other families are doing, actually changing family behavior? And is surfacing that kind of data something that research supports?

Dr. Wisniewski

In one context, we developed an app called COPS. It's Community Oversight of Privacy and Security. And what we did is it's a community-based app where parents and teens and even older family members or friends or coworkers could install the app to be able to view what apps are installed on each other's phones and what privacy permissions are shared. And what we saw is that collective, collaborative awareness and transparency and ability to make suggestions and recommendations to others did change their behavior, to some extent over time. And it raised their collective efficacy or their confidence that they have the capability to make these types of decisions together. Parents having an idea what other parents are doing also can be beneficial for the kids because instead of a kid having to say, Well, Mom, that's not how everybody else in my school's doing it, parents can get that from other parents or from kind of a centralized place for advice. And so it's not a battle that the kid has to fight on their own. So there is evidence-based research that suggests that doing some crowdsourced kind of knowledge development can help parents understand what the norms are across different families. Because one of the problems that we see online with reviews or forums is that we tend to see mostly the extremes. People leave a review when they're really happy with a product or when they're really unhappy with a product. And so that's why we see a lot more polarization in online spaces. So anything that can bring us more towards the middle so that people understand kind of what's normal instead of what's extreme could be beneficial in helping parents understand where they sit in that spectrum.

Matt Ruhstaller

Your research is moving towards a more lifespan perspective or maybe a more family-centric perspective on technology in the family. And I'm curious, beyond the parent-child relationship, are there other opportunities for a product like this to support families?

Dr. Wisniewski

Definitely. One of the things that we know about families is that the dynamic shifts, if there's multiple siblings or if there's aunts and uncles involved or grandparents. And so if we can model that more community-based like family network, in a way that can support the entire family, that would be stronger than just kind of this power hierarchy relationship of like the parent controlling each child individually. So, being able to have siblings be able to talk about and discuss and possibly even see their technology use, and be able to navigate and discuss that among themselves without their parents, that could be really beneficial. Or a kid being able to tell their parent, Hey, Dad, you know, you spent too much time on this website this week. What's up with that? That changes that power dynamic from the idea of like, Hey, this is just a tool to surveillance and police kids and get them in trouble, and there's no value proposition for them, to giving them that sense of agency where they might be able to help others. And that's one of the things that we do see in families often is that kids, with parents who don't have that tech savviness, they're often the ones in the household who set up the family network, who help troubleshoot how their parents use technology. And so this idea that it's the parent who has to control the technology use for their kids is oftentimes archaic.

Matt Ruhstaller

So many of the products that we've seen in the marketplace often position parents versus the children. It's kind of parents set the guidelines and children have to comply, and I'm wondering if there's maybe another paradigm that would work better and better represent the family and help them navigate their online life.

Dr. Wisniewski

That's a paradigm that the tech companies want us to buy into because it shifts the liability from good design of the platforms, to, Hey, this is the parent's responsibility to monitor and make sure their kids are safer online. But there's so many other approaches that we can take that are more based in community and based in family that don't put parents and teens at odds. So for instance, as we were talking about before, realizing that parents struggle with some of the same things that kids struggle with online, of managing their time and how often they check their mobile device. And so being able to work on that problem together so that we're using our technologies in the ways that we feel good about ourselves, rather than everybody treating it as the parent's job is to keep your kids off their phones. By managing it together, it makes it less about parent versus teen and more about the family versus all of the demands for our attention and our time that we want to manage ourselves to be able to have meaningful time as a family, to do enriching things as individuals, instead of some of the traps that we get into with mindless scrolling. So being able to increase intention as a family and be able to manage that together instead of making it kind of the struggle in the family where we're always constantly telling our kids to get off their phones.

Matt Ruhstaller

Discussions about safety online really focus on restrictions. And when I think about those restrictions, if we really wanted kids to be safe when they're outdoors or an example in a car, we would never let them get into a friend's car or never let them get their driver's license or learn to drive because then their, you know, risk would be zero. But obviously that's not what we do. I'm curious if there's parallels here, or you could speak to kind of how we can exchange those two ideas, and move families forward.

Dr. Wisniewski

One of the things that I say over and over again in my research is that safety is not the absence of risk. Safety is being able to teach teens how to navigate levels of risk so that they can engage in the world meaningfully and giving them mechanisms to protect themselves, one of the most poignant stories that somebody told me after one of my talks when I talked about resilience and risk, and teaching teens how to navigate risks online rather than trying to just shield them from any and all risks, was a preschool teacher who came up to me and said, You know, never in my life have I seen this phenomenon where I have kids showing up in preschool and they're going across the monkey bars, and they just let go, and they break both of their ankles because nobody ever let them experience monkey bars and the risk associated with falling. I think as a society, one of the things that we're trying to do more and more because social media has raised our awareness of the risks that are out there, is taking that more protectionist approach of like, Let's not let our kids fall. That is such an unrealistic standard that none of us are ever gonna be able to meet. And so teaching our kids how to fall gracefully and how to help pick them back up, those are the core parenting principles that we wanna bring forward because we can't live in a society where we put our kids in bubble wrap and hope that, you know, we can keep them safe because they need to experience the world.

Matt Ruhstaller

So to wrap up today, I'm curious in all the things we've talked about, we've talked about social media, we've talked about protections, we've talked about balancing autonomy. Is there one thing that parents and teens or families in general can take away that you'd really like to communicate to them about how they can navigate their safety and security online?

Dr. Wisniewski

The one thing that would be the most important thing to take away is that we need to stop treating teens like they're victims online, and realize that our youth are creative and they're resilient and they're smart, and they're growing up in a completely different world than we grew up in. And so we need to take the time to listen to them and learn from them, and ask questions with curiosity rather than coming from the place where we are, where we didn't grow up with these technologies and we're trying to, you know, assert our expectations on how they should grow up with them. And so really taking that approach where we give respect in our parenting to the youth who are growing up in this digital economy. Not saying give them the reins and let the kids be in control, but really leading with love and respect so that we can work together to tackle some of these challenges instead of making it a battle between generations.

Matt Ruhstaller

Dr. Wisniewski, it's an absolute pleasure to speak with you. I've learned so much from this brief conversation. I really appreciate your time, so I really wanna thank you for making the time to speak with us about this topic.

Dr. Wisniewski

Awesome. Thank you for having me.

Ce que nous avons appris en discutant avec la Dre Wisniewski

  • La sécurité n’est pas l’absence de risque: c’est apprendre aux enfants à le gérer eux-mêmes.
  • La plupart des applications de contrôle parental sont faites pour contrôler, pas pour apprendre. Sur 75 applications passées au crible en 2017, 89 % des fonctionnalités servaient au contrôle parental, 11 % seulement aidaient un adolescent à se réguler lui-même. Son article de 2024 montre que l’écart n’a pas bougé.
  • La panique autour des smartphones est exagérée, et la peur fait elle-même des dégâts.
  • Un âge minimum pour les réseaux sociaux se retourne souvent contre son objectif: les adolescents partent vers des plateformes moins sûres, pas plus.
  • La bonne façon de poser le problème, c’est la famille face à la technologie, pas les parents contre les enfants.

L’inquiétude monte et le réflexe suit: regarder de plus près. Lire les messages. Vérifier la localisation. Installer l’application qui surveille tout et qui rapporte tout. Vu du côté des parents, ça ressemble à de la sécurité.

Depuis quinze ans, la Dre Pamela Wisniewski se demande si c’est bien le cas, et elle pose la question sous un angle moins confortable: nos meilleures pratiques produisent-elles vraiment les résultats qu’on en attend? Chercheuse à l’International Computer Science Institute, une organisation indépendante à but non lucratif affiliée à UC Berkeley, elle a été professeure associée titulaire à Vanderbilt University et à l’University of Central Florida. Ses travaux ne s’arrêtent pas aux parents: elle interroge les adolescents, conçoit avec eux et regarde ce qu’ils font réellement en ligne.

Nous lui avons soumis les questions que se posent la plupart des parents. Ses réponses n’ont pas toujours été celles qu’on attendait.⁠[1]

Surveiller son enfant le protège-t-il vraiment?

Pas en soi, non. Ce qui compte le plus, dit la Dre Wisniewski, ce n’est pas la surveillance mais l’adhésion de l’enfant.

«La chose la plus importante à obtenir de nos enfants, c’est leur adhésion. Il faut qu’ils soient partie prenante de la démarche.»

Dre Wisniewski

Autrement dit: la surveillance sans réciprocité abîme la confiance. Imagine un outil qui montre à l’adolescent le résumé de sa propre activité, à côté de celle de son parent, et qui ne lit jamais le contenu. On change de registre: celui-là construit l’adhésion au lieu de la détruire.

Le postulat de départ de la plupart de ces outils est peut-être faux, d’ailleurs. Les enfants ne cherchent pas, en général, à agir en douce: ils ont surtout du mal à gérer leur temps et à faire des choix réfléchis en ligne. Ça te dit quelque chose? Normal: c’est le combat de la plupart des adultes.

Où la plupart des applications de contrôle parental font-elles fausse route?

Elles se construisent autour de ce qu’un enfant ne peut pas faire, jamais autour de ce qu’il est en train d’apprendre à faire.

«Beaucoup des applications de contrôle parental qui existent s’appuient énormément sur la surveillance et la restriction. Elles se concentrent sur ce que les adolescents ne peuvent pas faire en ligne, plutôt que sur ce qu’ils ont le droit d’y faire.»

Dre Wisniewski

Elle a les chiffres. En 2017, avec ses collègues, elle a passé au crible 75 applications de contrôle parental.⁠[2] Résultat: 89 % des fonctionnalités relevaient du contrôle parental, 11 % seulement aidaient un adolescent à apprendre à se réguler lui-même. Son article de 2024, «It’s Still Complicated»,⁠[3] constate que le marché n’a toujours pas comblé l’écart.

Ces 11 %, c’est tout l’enjeu. Un verrou qui tient tant qu’il est activé, ce n’est pas un enfant qui a appris à trancher tout seul.

«Si on n’arrive jamais à ce basculement, celui où les ados apprennent à le faire eux-mêmes, avec le soutien de leurs parents, alors on rend un mauvais service à notre jeunesse.»

Dre Wisniewski

Les smartphones provoquent-ils vraiment une crise de santé mentale?

Sur ce point, la Dre Wisniewski est plus prudente que les titres de presse. La corrélation entre smartphones et dégradation de la santé mentale des adolescents est plus faible que l’alarmisme ambiant ne le suggère, et certaines statistiques très citées ont été gonflées.

Des chercheuses comme Candice Odgers⁠[4] et Amy Orben⁠[5] ont montré que la corrélation est faible, si tant est qu’elle existe. Tout dépend de la famille, tout dépend de l’enfant. Une moyenne générale ne dira jamais ce qui se joue chez le tien.

Le coût le plus lourd, à ses yeux, c’est la panique elle-même.

«On a tendance à entretenir cette panique morale, ce discours de la peur autour de l’addiction et de l’usage de la technologie chez nos enfants. Et au fond, ce discours-là ne leur rend tout simplement pas service.»

Dre Wisniewski

La peur produit de la culpabilité et de la honte, dit-elle, pas des ressources pour faire face. Elle propose une image plus juste.

«Plutôt que de traiter la technologie comme une drogue, la traiter comme de la nourriture... il y a des aliments qui ne sont pas bons pour nous, et il faut avoir une alimentation saine.»

Dre Wisniewski

Il y a là une vraie tension, autant la nommer. Dans The Anxious Generation,⁠[6] Jonathan Haidt penche de l’autre côté: attendre, poser des limites plus fermes, repousser les réseaux sociaux. Wisniewski, elle, mise sur l’autonomie et l’apprentissage des compétences. Les deux ne sont pas d’accord sur tout, et ce désaccord mérite qu’on s’y arrête plutôt qu’on le tranche trop vite. Quand tu penses à ta famille et à ce qui se passe chez toi, les deux positions ont de bons arguments.

Faut-il réserver les réseaux sociaux aux plus de 16 ans?

Non, répond la Dre Wisniewski, mais avec prudence: pas cette mesure toute seule, en tout cas.

Pour la pornographie, elle est favorable à la vérification de l’âge. Les réseaux sociaux, dit-elle, c’est autre chose. Le risque y est réel, mais c’est aussi là que les adolescents créent du lien et trouvent du soutien, et son laboratoire a étudié les deux faces. Quant au seuil de 13 ans, si répandu, il est juridique avant d’être développemental: beaucoup de plateformes le retiennent pour échapper aux règles de consentement parental que la loi américaine Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act impose sur les données personnelles collectées auprès d’enfants plus jeunes, pas parce que 13 ans marquerait une maturité suffisante. Mais ce qui l’inquiète plus profondément, c’est le message qu’envoie une interdiction pure et simple.

«On doit faire attention à ne pas traiter les adolescents en ligne comme s’ils avaient moins de pouvoir d’agir, moins de responsabilité, moins de compétences pour se protéger eux-mêmes.»

Dre Wisniewski

À 17 ans, on leur confie un permis d’élève conducteur et on leur apprend à conduire, un adulte à côté. À 18 ans, ils votent et peuvent s’engager dans l’armée. En ligne, on leur dit qu’on ne leur fait pas confiance. Et l’interdiction ne tient peut-être même pas sa promesse.

«Imposer un âge minimum pour les réseaux sociaux, tout seul, ça ne donnera pas le résultat qu’on espère. Du coup, au lieu de rester sur des plateformes qui sont en réalité plus étroitement surveillées, les ados iront vers des plateformes moins sûres.»

Dre Wisniewski

Beaucoup d’adolescents savent parfaitement se servir d’un VPN pour contourner les protections, et passer une vérification d’âge n’est qu’une formalité pour un jeune à l’aise avec la technologie. L’intention est bonne; les preuves d’efficacité, elles, restent minces.

Alors, quand un enfant est-il prêt?

Pas un matin d’anniversaire, dit la Dre Wisniewski. Elle parle d’un «modèle de l’interrupteur»: on réduit le fait d’être prêt à une question d’âge, et c’est là, selon elle, qu’on se trompe le plus souvent.

Elle propose autre chose: une «approche par étayage». Bride courte quand ils sont petits, avec de l’accompagnement et des repères, puis on lâche les rênes à mesure qu’ils grandissent. Rien de très différent, au fond, de bien d’autres étapes de l’éducation d’un enfant.

«On commence par donner à l’enfant un tricycle avec des roulettes, et on finit par les enlever quand on voit qu’il tient l’équilibre. Après, c’est le vélo, et maintenant les trottinettes électriques. Puis, à un moment, on lui fait prendre des leçons de conduite, et un jour il conduit, il fait sa vie. Et c’est vraiment de ce modèle-là qu’on a besoin pour les réseaux sociaux et l’usage de la technologie.»

Dre Wisniewski

Si un enfant n’apprend pas, à neuf ans, à encaisser une remarque méchante dans une conversation de groupe, le cycle d’orientation sera un endroit brutal pour l’apprendre à douze. Et il n’existe pas de règle unique. Le téléphone qui permet à un enfant de partir en camp de vacances, ou à un enfant atteint d’une maladie chronique de gérer sa santé, ne pose pas la même question d’une famille à l’autre. Même une interdiction du téléphone à l’école, dit-elle, doit garder de la place pour des exceptions.

Et si le problème n’avait jamais été les enfants?

Être parent n’est pas une science exacte, et elle se garde bien de juger les parents pour les stratégies qu’ils adoptent.

«Il y a les parents plutôt négligents ou permissifs, ceux qui sont plus dans le laisser-faire. Il y a les parents qui font autorité, qui placent la barre haut pour leurs enfants mais qui, en même temps, comment dire, soutiennent leur recherche d’autonomie. Et puis il y a les parents plus autoritaires qui... ont tendance à être un peu trop restrictifs.»

Dre Wisniewski

La plupart d’entre nous seraient bien en peine de dire dans quelle case ils tombent, et la culpabilité circule dans les deux sens. Les parents se sentent nuls de ne pas tout surveiller. Ils oublient qu’ils ont été des enfants qui ont géré pas mal de risques sans surveillance permanente, et qu’ils sont arrivés à l’âge adulte sains et saufs. Les enfants, eux, culpabilisent de rester scotchés à leur fil d’actualité. Et à table, quand l’un d’eux lève les yeux et lâche «hé, toi aussi tu es sur ton téléphone», il n’a pas tort.

Le geste utile, c’est donc d’arrêter d’en faire un bras de fer.

«Quand on gère ça ensemble, c’est moins une histoire de parent contre ado et plus une histoire de famille face à tout ce qui se dispute notre attention et notre temps.»

Dre Wisniewski

Cette opposition parents contre enfants, note-t-elle, les plateformes sont ravies de nous la vendre. Elle déplace la responsabilité: le problème n’est plus la conception des plateformes, mais la question de savoir si toi, tu as regardé d’assez près.

Alors, que signifie vraiment la sécurité?

Sa définition, elle y revient sans cesse: la sécurité n’est pas l’absence de risque. C’est apprendre aux adolescents à gérer ce risque pour qu’ils puissent prendre part au monde d’une façon qui ait du sens.

«La sécurité n’est pas l’absence de risque. La sécurité, c’est pouvoir apprendre aux adolescents à gérer différents niveaux de risque pour qu’ils puissent prendre part au monde d’une façon qui ait du sens, et leur donner les moyens de se protéger.»

Dre Wisniewski

Elle rapporte l’histoire d’une enseignante d’école enfantine: des enfants arrivent à l’école, se suspendent aux barres de la place de jeux, lâchent prise et se cassent les deux chevilles. Personne ne leur avait jamais laissé sentir ce qu’était une chute. Protège un enfant de tout risque et tu ne le mets pas en sécurité: tu le rends fragile.

«Apprendre à nos enfants à tomber avec grâce, et savoir les aider à se relever: voilà les principes éducatifs essentiels qu’on veut transmettre. Parce qu’on ne peut pas vivre dans une société où on emballe nos enfants dans du papier bulle.»

Dre Wisniewski

Ce qu’il faut retenir

Nous lui avons demandé ce qui comptait le plus à ses yeux.

«Il faut arrêter de traiter les adolescents comme des victimes en ligne et comprendre que nos jeunes sont créatifs, résilients et intelligents.»

Dre Wisniewski

Écoute tes enfants, apprends d’eux. Pose des questions par curiosité plutôt que d’imposer les attentes d’une génération qui n’a pas grandi avec la technologie d’aujourd’hui. Ce n’est pas leur laisser les rênes: c’est avancer avec amour et respect, et prendre le problème ensemble au lieu d’en faire une guerre de générations.

Où se situe Allowed Online

Ce sont ces recherches qui nourrissent notre façon de penser et de construire.

Pour nous, protéger un enfant ne devrait pas vouloir dire le surveiller. Allowed Online agit au niveau du réseau: il bloque les contenus nuisibles avant même qu’ils ne se chargent, sans lire les messages ni suivre la localisation. Les parents posent les garde-fous; ils ne voient pas ce qui a été dit, cherché ou écrit. Les limites sont pensées pour s’effacer peu à peu devant le jugement de l’enfant, et l’enfant, lui, peut consulter ses propres données. C’est à ça que ressemble, dans un produit, l’effort pour rejoindre les 11 % dont parle Wisniewski.

Aucun outil ne règle ça tout seul, et le nôtre ne fait pas exception: Allowed Online est nécessaire, pas suffisant. Le vrai travail se fait dans les conversations qu’une famille tient en apprivoisant la technologie, et aucun logiciel ne peut les tenir à sa place. Un bon outil fait une seule chose: il laisse aux familles la place de les avoir.

Envie de savoir où en est ta famille aujourd’hui? Notre quiz gratuit de 2 minutes te montre ton style parental face au temps d’écran. Pas de score. Pas de note. La décision reste la tienne.

Reçois le prochain guide fondé sur la recherche directement dans ta boîte de réception.


Sources

[1] Entretien avec la Dre Pamela Wisniewski, enregistré pour Allowed Online (2026). Elle a reçu des honoraires pour cet entretien. Ses opinions et les recherches citées n’engagent qu’elle. Regarder l’entretien complet.

[2] Wisniewski, P., Ghosh, A. K., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B. & Carroll, J. M. (2017). Parental Control vs. Teen Self-Regulation: Is There a Middle Ground for Mobile Online Safety? Proceedings of CSCW ‘17, 51-69.

[3] Park, J. K., Akter, M., Wisniewski, P. & Badillo-Urquiola, K. (2024). It’s Still Complicated: From Privacy-Invasive Parental Control to Teen-Centric Solutions for Digital Resilience. IEEE Security & Privacy, 22(5), 52-62.

[4] Odgers, C. L. (2024). The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness? Nature, 628, 29-30.

[5] Orben, A. & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173-182.

[6] Haidt, J. (2024). The Anxious Generation. Penguin Press.