Happy Thursday everyone and welcome to this week's edition of Wired Parents.

Another busy one on the global front. Spain announced criminal liability for platform executives while coordinating with France, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and one unnamed country on children's social media restrictions. India's Supreme Court began hearing petitions on age restrictions. LA's trial started revealing Meta's internal research on teen mental health. The UN issued warnings about AI threats-deepfakes and chatbot grooming- that sit outside social media bans. And the AAP changed its screen time guidance, saying time limits alone are no longer enough.

Plus, in Part 2 of our series, we look at what happens when parents simply say no to social media—what it protects, what it doesn't, and why 90% of US parents are giving permission anyway.

There's a lot of detail, so grab a coffee and have a read.

As always, get in touch if there's anything in particular you would like us to cover. Chances are, whatever you're thinking about, other parents are too. Till next week,

—Heidi

Share Wired Parents with a parent friend trying to make sense of all this. Subscribe here

Spain became the first European country to announce a ban on social media for children under 16 on February 3, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declaring at the World Government Summit in Dubai that social media platforms represent a failed state where laws are ignored and crimes are tolerated. Unlike Australia's ban that relies on fines up to 49.5 million Australian dollars, Spain's approach makes executives criminally liable for illegal content on their platforms, meaning platform executives could face criminal prosecution if illegal content appears on their services and children access it. Spain is coordinating with five unnamed European countries, with France's ban expected to take effect in September 2026 and Greece, Denmark, and Norway all pursuing similar policies.

France's National Assembly approved legislation banning social media for under-15s in a 130-21 vote on January 27. The bill now moves to the Senate before returning for a final vote. President Emmanuel Macron called it a "major step" to protect French children and teenagers. If passed, France would become the third country after Australia and Spain to impose such a ban. Polls show 73% of the French public support the restriction.

India's Supreme Court began hearing petitions on January 30 calling for age restrictions on social media, with multiple states implementing their own bans while the federal government considers national legislation. The conversation is happening at state, judicial, and parliamentary levels simultaneously, though whether that translates into federal action remains unclear. If India moves forward with verification systems for a billion users, implementation won't happen quickly, and the country will likely wait to see how enforcement works in Australia and France first.

The first jury trial examining whether social media platforms deliberately designed addictive features began this week in Los Angeles. TikTok and Snapchat settled on the eve of trial with confidential terms. Meta (Zuckerberg and Mosseri testifying) and YouTube are proceeding. The plaintiff claims Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok caused depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia from age 10. Internal documents and research on children will be revealed during trial. More than 1,000 plaintiffs and hundreds of school districts are awaiting the outcome.

Virginia's one-hour daily limit for under-16s on social media took effect January 1. Tech companies immediately filed a legal challenge through NetChoice, arguing that limiting children's screen time violates their free speech rights under the Constitution. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares countered that social media companies have "designed their platforms to be addictive" and adolescents "often find themselves unable to log off." The case tests whether states can impose usage limits without parental consent.

Governor Kathy Hochul announced proposals on January 5 expanding age verification requirements to online gaming platforms, specifically targeting Roblox. The legislation would also disable AI chatbots on children's accounts, require parental approval for financial transactions, and set kids' profiles to private by default. Roblox reported ~13,000 instances of child exploitation in 2023 alone. One research firm described the platform as "an X-rated pedophile hellscape." New York already enacted algorithm restrictions in 2024 and banned smartphones in schools.

Find out more over at Wired-Parents.com

Over four weeks, we're examining every major approach to protecting children from social media.

Week 1: Government bans like Australia's. What they protect. What they require.

Week 2 (now live): Parental opt-out. What it covers. What it doesn't.

Week 3: Platform regulation. What it can change. What it can't.

Week 4: Why no single approach solves everything and what your options are.

Different families will make different choices, and this series helps you see what each approach actually does.

So here's the alternative: parents simply don't give their children social media access.

The approach is straightforward. No age verification needed, no surveillance infrastructure built, no data surrendered. Your child turns 16, 18, 21 and still has privacy unless they choose otherwise. Australia's approach requires everyone to prove their age, surrendering identity data to platforms designed to collect it. Parental opt-out requires nothing, just a decision not to participate.

The mental health research is the same regardless of approach. That study of 10,000+ children? Smartphone ownership at age 12 linked to 31% higher depression rates by age 14. Instagram's internal research showing harm to teenage girls' body image? Still true. Families suing TikTok over teen suicides? Those cases exist whether governments ban platforms or parents do.

Before the internet, childhood had certain protections. Mistakes disappeared. Those embarrassing things you did at 13 were forgotten by 16. You could reinvent yourself. Children had privacy, not from parents but from corporations, algorithms, future employers. They had genuine boredom, the kind that leads to creativity rather than three seconds without stimulus. And crucially, social comparison was limited to your immediate peer group. You didn't see curated highlight reels of thousands of teenagers' "perfect" lives served by algorithms designed to maximise engagement.

Social media, by design, eliminates all of this. Even the "good" platforms, even with parental controls, even "just for family connections." The business model requires surveillance and engagement optimization.

The problem: Parental opt-out only works for your child. You protect your 13-year-old by saying no, but their classmate's parents don't. That child, equally deserving of protection, remains completely exposed. EFF data shows 10% of parents in the US are saying no to social media for under-13s, but 90% are giving permission meaning most parents aren't restricting access; they're actively granting it. Parent groups like Wait Until 8th (US), Smartphone Free Childhood (UK), and Waitmate (Australia) exist to build collective support for families making this choice.

Your child doesn't have Instagram, but the five other kids on the bus do. Your child sees the content anyway, sees the interactions, experiences the social dynamics, feels the exclusion. You've protected them from direct access and mental health risks, but you haven't protected them from living in a world where social media exists.

The children most needing protection—those whose parents are overwhelmed, under-resourced, or simply make different choices—are precisely the ones who won't get it.

What this approach does: preserves your child's privacy completely and protects them from documented mental health harms without building surveillance systems. Options include basic phones (call and text only), dumb phones designed for children, or smartphones without social media apps installed.

What it doesn't do: change anything for children whose parents make different choices, meaning your child is protected while other children aren't.

Read the full article on: Why Saying No to Social Media Only Protects Your Child →

Next week: Can we regulate platforms themselves to be safer? Chronological feeds instead of algorithmic ones. Restricted DMs. Content filtering. What if we change the platforms rather than debating who gets access?

If you missed Part One, you can catch up here: When Governments Ban Social Media for Children →

First a word from our sponsor:

Winter doesn’t have to feel heavy or indulgent in ways that don’t serve you. It’s a season to slow down, feel grounded, and still savor the ritual of a beautiful drink. Enter Vesper, Pique’s newest release—and my favorite upgrade to winter sipping.

Pique is known for blending ancient botanicals with modern science to create elevated wellness essentials, and Vesper is no exception. This non-alcoholic, adaptogenic aperitif delivers the relaxed, social glow of a cocktail—without alcohol or the next-day regret.

It’s what I reach for when I want something special in my glass on a cold evening. Each sip feels celebratory and calming, with a gentle mood lift, relaxed body, and clear, present mind. No haze. No sleep disruption. Just smooth, grounded ease.

Crafted with L-theanine, lemon balm, gentian root, damiana, and elderflower, Vesper is sparkling, tart, and beautifully herbaceous—truly crave-worthy.

Winter isn’t about cutting back. It’s about choosing what feels good. And Vesper makes every pour feel like a yes.

Get 10% off for life

Last week we looked at government bans and what they require. This week's piece covers parental opt-out and what it reaches. On January 19, multiple UN agencies issued a joint statement on AI and child safety, pointing to risks that sit outside both approaches.

While governments ban children from Instagram and TikTok, the UN is flagging threats those bans don't address.

The problem: Someone can take your child's photo from their school website or sports team page and use AI to create explicit fake images, no social media account required. AI chatbots appear in homework help sites and gaming platforms, and your child asks for maths help only to have the conversation gradually shift toward inappropriate topics. You've supervised social media perfectly, but this happened on an educational site.

The scale: Technology-facilitated child abuse cases in the US jumped from 4,700 in 2023 to ~67,000 in 2024.

What governments are doing: Australia banned under-16s from social media, France approved under-15 restrictions, and the US Senate is advancing under-13 bans, but none of these address AI chatbots on homework sites or AI-generated deepfakes using publicly available photos. New York is the exception, with Governor Hochul's proposals specifically disabling AI chatbots on children's accounts and targeting Roblox, which reported ~13,000 instances of child exploitation in 2023.

Why this matters: Government bans cover social media platforms. Parental opt-out covers your child's direct access. AI-related risks sit outside both approaches, worth knowing as you think through your family's options.

Read the article on why the: UN Warns of Escalating AI Threats to Children →

UCL researchers released findings this month from the Children of the 2020s study showing that two-year-olds in England spend an average of two hours daily watching television, videos, or digital content, double the World Health Organisation's recommendation of one hour maximum for children aged 2 to 4.

The Department for Education commissioned the research, which analysed data from more than 4,700 parents of two-year-old children in England. Only 34% of children met the WHO recommendation, while 98% viewed screens on a typical day. One in five toddlers regularly played computer games.

Children who spent the most time on screens (an average of five hours daily) scored lower in vocabulary tests than those who spent the least time (an average of 44 minutes daily), with high-use children correctly identifying 53% of test words compared to 65% for low-use children. The association remained after researchers controlled for family income and parental education.

Screen time was also linked to emotional and behavioural difficulties. Two-year-olds who spent the most time on screens were twice as likely to experience difficulties compared to those who watched screens the least (39% vs 17%).

The research revealed substantial socioeconomic patterns. Children in the lowest income families had nearly double the screen time of those in the highest income families (179 minutes vs 97 minutes daily), while parents from the most well-off families were more than twice as likely to read to their children daily than those from the least affluent homes (77% vs 32%).

Why this matters: The UK government announced plans to publish formal guidance on screen time for under-5s by April 2026, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson forming a national working group to develop recommendations. This represents the UK's first official state intervention on early years screen time.

The complication: Researchers acknowledged that screen time is often perceived by parents as a valuable tool to manage modern household demands, settle children when upset, and provide educational content like nursery rhymes and early literacy activities.

Read more about the research at UCL