Debunking four myths about children’s safety online
Every human today lives in increasingly concentrated echo chambers of thought and information. This doesn’t just shape our political opinions—it also influences how we discuss issues like misinformation, disinformation, and online harm.
Even in public health and development, we often repeat narratives about the digital spaces and misinformation without questioning the data.
A new UNICEF Innocenti article challenges four common myths about children’s online safety, reminding us that well-intended assumptions don’t always match reality:
1️⃣ More internet access isn’t automatically beneficial
While increasing connectivity can offer children opportunities for learning, socializing, and engagement, it also exposes them to risks like hate speech and violent content. Countries with expanding internet access need proactive measures to safeguard children from digital harms.
2️⃣ Video games can support children’s well-being—if designed thoughtfully
Rather than being inherently harmful, video games can enhance children’s emotional regulation, autonomy, and social connections. However, their impact depends on design choices that prioritize positive and developmentally appropriate experiences.
3️⃣ Online and offline violence are interconnected
Violence in digital spaces often mirrors or extends real-world violence. Children facing bullying, coercion, or exploitation offline are more likely to experience similar harms online. Prevention efforts must address both environments together.
4️⃣ Most online abuse doesn’t come from strangers
Contrary to common fears, many instances of online sexual abuse involve perpetrators known to the child—friends, family members, or acquaintances. Effective prevention strategies must consider all potential sources of harm, not just external threats.
This article is a reminder that our digital environments are not neutral.
The ways we frame problems—especially in public health and policy—shape the solutions we pursue.
If we want to tackle online harm, we must first question our own perceptions and assumptions and ground our approaches in evidence, not fear-driven narratives.