What we learned talking to Dr. Wisniewski
- Safety is not the absence of risk. It is about teaching kids to navigate risk themselves.
- Most parental control apps are built for control, not for learning. In a 2017 study of 75 apps, 89 percent of features supported parental control and only 11 percent supported a teenager learning to self-regulate. Her 2024 paper found the gap had not closed.
- The panic around smartphones is overstated, and the fear itself can do harm.
- Age-gating social media often backfires. Teens move to platforms that are less safe, not more.
- The frame that works is family versus tech, not parents versus kids.
When we feel worried, the instinct is to look closer. Read their messages. Check their location. Install an app that watches and reports back. As a parent, it feels like safety.
Dr. Pamela Wisniewski has spent fifteen years studying whether it really is, asking a harder question: are the outcomes we want actually achievable with the methods we assume are best? She is a principal research scientist at the International Computer Science Institute, an independent nonprofit affiliated with UC Berkeley, and was previously a tenured associate professor at Vanderbilt University and the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses not only on parents but on teenagers themselves. She interviews them, designs with them, and looks at what they actually do online.
We asked her the questions that are top of mind for most parents. Her answers were not always the ones we expected.[1]
Does watching your kid actually keep them safe?
Not on its own, no. What matters most, Dr. Wisniewski says, is buy-in from the kid, not surveillance.
"The most important thing that we need to have from our kids is buy-in. They need to be part of the process."
Dr. Wisniewski
Her point is that monitoring without reciprocity damages trust. A tool that showed a teen a summary of their own activity, alongside the parent’s, and never read the content, would be a different thing entirely. It would build buy-in instead of burning it.
And the premise most parental control tools start from may be wrong. Kids are not usually trying to get away with something. More often they are struggling to manage their time and be intentional online. Sound familiar? It should, because it is the same thing most adults are trying to navigate themselves.
What do most parental control apps get wrong?
They are built around what a child cannot do, not what they are learning to do.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
She puts a number on it. In 2017, she and her colleagues analyzed 75 parental control apps.[2] Of those, 89 percent of the features supported parental control, and only 11 percent supported a teenager learning to regulate themselves. Her 2024 paper, “It’s Still Complicated,”[3] found the market had not closed that gap.
That 11 percent is the whole game. A control that works while it is switched on is not the same as a child who has learned to make the call themselves.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
Are smartphones really causing a mental-health crisis?
Dr. Wisniewski is more cautious about this claim than the headlines suggest. The correlation between smartphones and declining teen mental health is weaker than the alarm implies, and some widely cited statistics have been overstated.
Researchers like Candice Odgers[4] and Amy Orben[5] have shown the correlation is weak, if it is there at all. It depends on the specific family and the specific child. You cannot read a single child off a global average.
The bigger cost, in her view, is the panic itself.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
Fear produces guilt and shame, she says, not coping. She offers a better metaphor.
"Instead of treating technology like a drug, treating it like a food... there's some foods that are unhealthy for us and that we need to have a healthy diet."
Dr. Wisniewski
This is where the honest tension sits. Jonathan Haidt, in The Anxious Generation,[6] makes the opposite-leaning case: delay, firmer limits, later social media. Wisniewski’s research pulls toward autonomy and skill-building. They do not fully agree, and that disagreement is worth sitting with rather than resolving too quickly. Each has its merits when you are thinking about your own home and family.
Should social media be gated until 16?
Dr. Wisniewski’s answer is a careful no, or at least not on its own.
She supports age verification for pornography. Social media, she says, is a different case. It carries real risks, but it is also where teens connect and find support, and her lab has studied both sides. The common minimum age of 13 is largely a legal artifact: many platforms pick it to stay clear of the parental-consent rules the US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act attaches to personal data collected from younger children, not because 13 marks readiness. Her deeper worry is the message a hard ban sends.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
We let fifteen-year-olds learn to drive. We let eighteen-year-olds enlist. Online, we tell them we do not trust them. And the ban may not even do what it promises.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
Many teenagers are adept at using VPNs to bypass protections, and clearing an age check is trivial for a tech-savvy kid. The goal is right, but the evidence for effectiveness remains thin.
So when is a kid ready?
Not on a birthday, says Dr. Wisniewski. She calls the “switch model”, treating readiness as a single age, the thing we mostly get wrong.
The alternative, she says, is a “scaffolding approach”. Hold tight when they are young, in a mediated, guided way, then let go of the reins as they grow. It is not so different from many other milestones of raising a child.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
If a child never learns to handle a mean comment in a group chat at nine, middle school is a brutal place to learn it at twelve. And there is no single rule. A phone that lets one child go to summer camp, or lets a child with a chronic illness manage their health, is not the same decision for every family. Even a school phone ban, she says, needs room for exceptions.
What if the problem was never the kids?
Parenting is not a perfect art, and her stance is that the job here is not to judge parents for the strategies they use.
"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... tend to be a little over-restrictive."
Dr. Wisniewski
Most of us cannot say for certain which one we are, and the guilt runs both ways. Parents feel like failures for not watching everything, forgetting that they were once children who navigated plenty of risk without constant oversight and still arrived at adulthood safely. Kids feel bad for getting stuck in the feed. Meanwhile the child at the table has a fair point when they look up and say, “hey, you are on your phone too.”
So the useful move is to stop making it a standoff.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
The parents-versus-kids frame, she notes, is one the platforms are happy to sell us. It shifts the responsibility from how they are designed onto whether you watched closely enough.
So what does safety actually mean?
Safety, in her framing, is not the absence of risk. It is teaching teens to navigate risk so they can engage with the world meaningfully. It is the line she returns to.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
She tells a story a preschool teacher told her: children arriving at school who go across the monkey bars, let go, and break both ankles, because no one ever let them feel what falling is. Protect a child from every risk and you have not made them safe. You have made them fragile.
"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."
Dr. Wisniewski
The one thing to take home
We asked her for the single takeaway.
"We need to stop treating teens like they're victims online, and realise that our youth are creative and they're resilient and they're smart."
Dr. Wisniewski
Listen to your kids, and learn from them. Ask questions with curiosity instead of asserting the expectations of a generation that did not grow up with today’s technology. It is not a case for handing kids the reins. It is a case for leading with love and respect, and working the problem together instead of turning it into a fight between generations.
Where Allowed Online fits
This is the research behind how we think and build.
We do not believe keeping a child safe should mean watching them. Allowed Online works at the network level. It blocks harmful content before it loads, without reading messages or tracking location. Parents set the guardrails but do not see what was said, searched or texted. Those boundaries are built to hand judgment back to the child over time, and kids can see their own data. That is what pushing toward Wisniewski’s 11 percent looks like in a product.
No single tool fixes this, and ours is no exception. Allowed Online is necessary, not sufficient. The conversations a family has while navigating technology do the part of the job no software can. Good tools just buy families the room to have them.
Curious where your own family sits today? Our free two-minute quiz shows you your screen-time parenting style. No score. No grade. The call stays yours.
Get the next research-backed guide in your inbox.
Sources
[1] Interview with Dr. Pamela Wisniewski, recorded for Allowed Online (2026). Conducted with an honorarium; her views and cited research are her own. Watch the full interview.
[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.