CAVEAT: We recently came across a post where a highly respected digital literacy educator was criticized, by those pushing for phone bans, for their collaboration with a well-known big tech company. As we read it, one phrase immediately came to mind: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” This proverb, dating back to at least the 17th century, conveys the idea that if something is considered fair or acceptable for one person or group, it should be equally fair or acceptable for another. Conflict of interest isn’t just about bad intent; it’s about how relationships can appear to bias decisions or messaging. Another critic recently stated:
“The obscured links between Big Tech and “trusted” experts / organizations / academics needs to be exposed for the national scandal that it is.”
Agreed 100%, but the same question needs to be asked to some of those who are pushing for phone bans as well – let me explain why!
In recent years, advocacy groups, organizations, and individuals have championed policies aimed at restricting cellphone use in schools and delaying access to social media until at least age 16. Many of these voices argue that such measures are necessary to protect the mental health and well-being of youth. However, a critical question arises: Should these advocates, particularly those receiving funding from technology companies promoting parental control and monitoring software, be subject to the same scrutiny regarding conflicts of interest as the tech companies and digital literacy educators they criticize?
Digital literacy educators who receive financial compensation, funding, paid trips, or gifts from technology companies or social media platforms are often placed under heightened scrutiny due to concerns about conflicts of interest. This scrutiny is warranted, as their financial ties to these corporations could influence, or be perceived to influence, the way they present information about youth technology use. This is especially true if these same social media companies are being criticized for harming youth, or turning a blind eye to child safety issues , such as online exploitation.
Critics reasonably argue that these conflicts of interest call into question the credibility and impartiality of the messages these educators share. When an individual or organization is financially supported by a company whose business model revolves around user engagement, data collection, or digital consumption, there is a valid concern that their educational content may be shaped in a way that aligns with the interests of their corporate benefactors rather than prioritizing the well-being of young users. For instance, a digital literacy and internet safety educator who receives a grant, funding, or donations from a social media platform, may be less likely to highlight the platform’s role in fostering habituating behaviours, facilitating cyberbullying or online exploitation, or exposing youth to harmful content due to the real risk of now being “shadow banned”. Similarly, they may downplay concerns about privacy violations, algorithmic manipulation, or the potential mental health effects it may have on some youth.
However, some of the most outspoken supporters of cellphone bans in schools and delayed social media access can sometimes receive gifts in kind, funding, or financial support from companies that sell technology-based safety solutions to parents, such as parental control apps, monitoring software, phone control/ blocking products, and screen-use management tools. In fact, we have seen some of these supporters actually partnering with these companies to provide “free” products to schools. If financial ties influencing digital literacy educators are seen as a conflict of interest, shouldn’t these proponents of restrictive tech policies also be held accountable for potential conflicts if there is a direct connection to these companies?
The push to delay youth access to technology often frames itself as a movement driven by child protection concerns. However, when those advocating for these restrictions have financial backing, or receive gifts from companies that profit from controlling children’s tech use, it raises questions about the objectivity of their recommendations as well.
If an advocacy group argues that children under 16 shouldn’t have smartphones, but receives funding, donations, or in-kind support from companies that sell parental monitoring software, child-specific phones, or smartwatches, can we be sure their position is driven solely by research and genuine concern? Or is there a financial motive to generate demand for their sponsor’s products? Similarly, if an organization pushes for school-wide cellphone bans while benefiting from partnerships with companies that sell classroom surveillance tools or phone-locking pouches, should parents and educators unquestioningly trust their recommendations?
In an era where technology’s role in youth development is under intense scrutiny, it is essential that all voices influencing public perception and policy, whether advocating for increased access or greater restrictions, are held to the same ethical standards. The debate around cellphone use in schools and the appropriate age for social media engagement is not just about child protection; it is also about ensuring that the arguments shaping these decisions are rooted in transparency, not tainted by undisclosed financial interests.
If digital literacy educators are criticized, and rightfully so, for financial ties that might bias their messaging, then advocates calling for bans and delays must also be held accountable when they receive support from companies that stand to profit from these restrictions. Whether the product is a parental control app, a school phone pouch, or classroom surveillance software, the potential for financial gain can influence narratives just as much as partnerships with social media platforms.
Ultimately, credibility in this space hinges on full disclosure. Parents, educators, and policymakers deserve to know not just what is being advocated, but why, and whether that “why” is driven by genuine concern or commercial interests. Transparency is not optional. It is the foundation of trust.
Transparency about funding sources and potential conflicts of interest should be a fundamental ethical responsibility for any advocacy group, academic researcher, or digital literacy presenter, regardless of whether they support or oppose increased technology access for youth. If academic researchers and digital literacy educators are held to high standards of transparency and ethical accountability, then advocacy organizations influencing policy decisions about children’s technology use should also be subject to the same scrutiny.
In the end, this isn’t just about who is right or wrong in the debate over youth and technology. It’s about ensuring that the voices shaping that debate are honest, balanced, and transparent. Because when it comes to our kids, we all deserve the truth, not just the version that sells a product to one’s financial benefit.
Related Articles:
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
