The Guardian’s Perspective on Young Children and Technology: Additional Concerns About Major Tech Companies | Editorial

The impending release of the UK government’s guidelines regarding children’s interaction with screens, such as tablets and smartphones, is becoming increasingly urgent. Given the surge in digital technology and the prevalence of social media, the previous hands-off approach seems particularly ill-suited when it involves screen time for infants. According to the Department for Education’s ongoing Children of the 2020s study, a staggering 98% of two-year-olds engage with screens for over two hours on a typical day. Those with the highest screen engagement tend to have reduced vocabularies and are twice as likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral issues compared to their peers.

It’s essential to clarify that correlation does not imply causation. This is a developing field of study, and certainty remains elusive. However, a recent survey published by the charity Kindred Squared, alongside input from educators, paints a troubling picture. A survey of 1,000 primary-school teachers found that 37% of four-year-olds began school in 2025 without essential life skills, such as dressing themselves or eating independently, an increase from 33% two years prior.

While some of these children may have additional support needs, the charity does not claim that screens are the sole contributing factor. Various stresses, including financial hardships and reductions in local early years services, also impact the lives of the youngest children. Nonetheless, many educators, supported by the NASUWT union, argue that the detrimental effects of screens on development should be taken seriously. They advocate for families to prioritize traditional activities—books and tangible toys—over digital distractions like swipes and clicks.

According to the World Health Organization, children under the age of two should not be exposed to screens at all. Although it’s unlikely most parents will adhere strictly to such recommendations, there remains an opportunity for government officials to adopt a more precautionary stance. It is vital to emphasize the significance of early language development and the emotional growth of children, and to provide parents with the necessary support when they require it.

Following recent global concern regarding the propagation of inappropriate images on Grok and the swift sharing capabilities on platforms like X, discussions on regulation have escalated. Recent comments from Kemi Badenoch have led her party to support setting an age limit of 16 for social media applications, drawing on the example set by Australia. With some Labour MPs also showing support, the government faces increasing pressure to take action.

Advocates for stricter regulations are correct in asserting that the current laws are inadequate. The implementation of age verification should have been prioritized, and features designed to foster addiction should never have been enabled on children’s accounts. However, in the race to respond to the heightened public concern, there exists a risk that issues may become convoluted. It’s crucial to examine what activities are being replaced by screen time for preschool-aged children—be it reading, playing with toys, or engaging in physical games—and understand why this matters. The implications of social media and smartphones for teenagers necessitate a different assessment. The emergence of nudification apps presents a separate concern altogether. A focused effort on under-16s could inadvertently shift attention away from the broader threat posed by sexually explicit AI-generated imagery.

Ofcom‘s swift action in response to the outrage over Grok/X was commendable. While it may be prudent to restrict social media access for users under 16, warnings regarding the dangers of screens for toddlers should not be overlooked. The overarching message from recent events is clear: democratic oversight of the tech industry must evolve and accelerate.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.