Warnings about children and technology are issued by international organizations in a way that seems almost routine. After a resolution is passed, a statement is issued, and a few headlines appear for a day or two, Silicon Valley’s machinery continues to function essentially unaltered. However, the OMEP resolution on digital childhood has a different vibe. Or it ought to, anyway.
For many years, OMEP, the World Organization for Early Childhood Education, has been raising concerns about the digital colonization of early childhood, frequently in partnership with UNESCO. Their stance does not stem from a fear of technology. The fact that children, particularly young children, are being exposed to digital environments created for profit rather than for development and that the adults in charge of protecting them are either ignorant of this or unwilling to take action is more specific and unsettling. That is a grave charge. It’s also difficult to argue against given what has been happening around the world.
Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated in late May 2026 that enhancing children’s online safety was a “urgent priority.” He urged both governments and tech firms to take greater action, including making platforms safer by design, safeguarding data, and holding those who cause harm accountable. It was a firm language. However, it is similar to witnessing someone shout into a canyon and waiting to hear the echo when these declarations land in a public area. Usually, the echo appears. The action, less consistently.
It is important to observe what nations are actually doing. In December 2025, Australia outlawed children under the age of sixteen from using social media. Age-based restrictions have also been implemented in Indonesia, Malaysia, Austria, Denmark, France, and Spain. As usual, the UK is still considering its options. These actions are genuinely well-intentioned and politically popular. The issue is that restricting access does not alter the platforms’ actual design, as some child safety experts have noted. A gate is an age restriction. The engagement-maximizing architecture, autoplay loops, and algorithmic nudges that sit behind the gate are all still in place.
OMEP and UNESCO have been attempting to push into this exact area. Their webinar on digital technology and artificial intelligence in early childhood in January 2026 was not a theoretical exercise. It was an effort to create what they referred to as a “evidence-based understanding” of how these tools actually work in preschool settings and to create practical rules for moral, responsible use. This work may eventually have a significant impact on policy. It’s also possible that it will become part of the enormous collection of reports that are ignored in boardrooms and referenced in footnotes.
The deeper problem, which educator Enrique Dans has been writing about for years, is that closing the curtain and acting as though the screen doesn’t exist is not the solution to the dangers of digital childhood. Before they turn fourteen, 95% of Spanish teenagers already have a smartphone. The majority of North America and Europe have comparable numbers. Whether or not kids would come into contact with this technology was never really a question. Whether anyone will bother instructing them on how to use it is the question. The curriculum is lacking in critical thinking, privacy awareness, and an awareness of the commercial exploitation of attention. not only from educational institutions but also from the general dialogue.
In response to these demands, tech companies typically make carefully crafted promises and update their settings menus. Child safety is no longer a cornerstone but rather a feature. It’s still unclear if the growing body of national legislation, OMEP, and the UN’s regulatory pressure will be sufficient to alter the incentive structures that initially make children valuable to platforms. One advocacy voice stated quite bluntly that children are not commodities. However, that idea was not taken into consideration when designing the internet’s architecture. No resolution, no matter how urgently worded, will be sufficient on its own until it is.
