In a stirring display of youth advocacy, two teenagers voiced their concerns at a Childnet event for Safer Internet Day, only to find their powerful messages about the dangers of social media significantly diluted. The incident has raised questions about the integrity of child internet safety campaigns that receive funding from major tech firms.
A Call for Authenticity
Lewis Swire, 19, from Edinburgh, and Saamya Ghai, now 16, from Buckinghamshire, were invited to speak at the 2024 event in London, where they aimed to shed light on pressing issues surrounding children’s online experiences. However, both speakers reported that their speeches were edited to remove stark warnings about the impacts of social media, including references to it as “one of the worst psychological addictions in history.”
Swire, who was a member of Childnet’s youth advisory board at the time, felt a sense of betrayal when he saw crucial parts of his speech cut just before he was due to take the stage. “I was pretty surprised because at this stage I didn’t know there was a conflict of interest with where their funding was coming from. I felt like we were being censored and almost betrayed,” he remarked.
The Edits That Shook Their Confidence
Among the excised phrases was a poignant line that illustrated the dire state many young people find themselves in: “Young people are begging for a rope to pull them from the quicksand.” The edits also omitted a critique of social media’s role in exacerbating feelings of isolation and a questioning of why anyone would spend years “scrolling TikTok and binge-watching Netflix.”
Ghai echoed Swire’s sentiments, stating, “It felt hypocritical because they were asking us to speak up against this and then at the same time they watered down what we wanted to say so much.” The removals were particularly shocking given that both teenagers were encouraged to share their authentic experiences and concerns.
Childnet’s Response and Ongoing Debate
In response to the accusations, Will Gardner, Childnet’s chief executive, defended the organisation’s editorial decisions. He insisted that the adjustments were not made to appease their tech industry funders but were instead tied to the constraints of the event, including time limitations and the need to maintain an appropriate tone.
Gardner asserted, “We would certainly advise and edit around tone and language but we wouldn’t stop young people making a point.” However, critics argue that the very nature of these edits raises significant ethical concerns about the influence of financial backers on organisations that claim to prioritise child safety online.
Daisy Greenwell, co-founder of the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, stated that it is unacceptable for young voices to be muted in ways that protect the interests of Big Tech. “When young people are filtered until they echo a pre-approved line, that isn’t participation – it’s cover,” she said, capturing the essence of the ongoing struggle for authentic youth representation in discussions about online safety.
The Bigger Picture
As the 2026 Safer Internet Day approaches, with over 2,800 schools and colleges supporting the initiative, the controversy surrounding Childnet serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in advocating for child safety in a digital age dominated by corporate interests. Swire has since become a passionate advocate for a ban on social media for those under 16, inspired by the stories of peers who feel trapped by their online habits.
Why it Matters
This incident highlights a critical dilemma in the conversation about internet safety: the clash between genuine advocacy for children’s wellbeing and the commercial interests of the tech industry. As young people increasingly navigate a digital landscape that can be both enriching and harmful, it is vital that their authentic voices are not silenced. The integrity of organisations dedicated to child safety must be called into question, as the success of any initiative hinges on the ability to address the real issues facing today’s youth without fear of censorship or compromise.
