← The Family Perspective

Safety Isn't the Absence of Risk

Dr. Pamela Wisniewski on why safety is not the absence of risk, what parental control apps get wrong, and how families can build trust instead of surveillance.

Dr. Wisniewski received an honorarium for this interview. Her views, and any research cited, are her own.

Portrait of Dr. Pamela Wisniewski
Dr. Pamela Wisniewski Principal Research Scientist, International Computer Science Institute

For fifteen years she has studied how families navigate technology by listening to the people usually left out of the conversation: the kids.

Title card reading Safety Isn't the Absence of Risk, with the subtitle Dr. Pamela Wisniewski on screen time, teens, and online safety

Listen to the full interview

Press play and the transcript opens and follows along. Select any line to jump to that moment.

Read along with the transcriptHide the transcript33 min

Highlights

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.

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.