From Child-Safe to Human-Safe: Why Digital Platforms Need Universal Design Standards

Every few months, we see another proposal to make the internet safer for children.

Whether it is age verification, parental controls, teen accounts or restrictions on certain platform features, the underlying objective is the same – protect children from harmful online experiences.

The recently published European Commission report on child safety online continues in the same direction. It is a timely reminder that children deserve better protection in digital spaces.

I couldn't agree more.

But it also made me wonder whether we are asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking "How do we make the internet safer for children?", perhaps we should first ask "Is he internet safe enough for everyone?"

The assumption we rarely question

Much of today's digital regulation starts with a simple assumption. ‘Children are vulnerable. Adults can look after themselves.’

That sounds reasonable until we look at how digital platforms actually work.

Infinite scrolling doesn't become less addictive because someone turns eighteen. Autoplay doesn't become less persuasive. Recommendation algorithms don't suddenly stop influencing behaviour. Constant notifications don't become less distracting.

If these features are capable of affecting children's behaviour, it is difficult to argue that they somehow lose that capability when the user becomes an adult.

Adults are not as immune as we think

Every day, adults spend hours scrolling without intending to.

• They fall for online scams.

• They buy things they didn't plan to buy.

• They consume misinformation.

• They chase notifications.

• They struggle to disconnect.

In fact, some of the biggest concerns around misinformation, financial fraud and online manipulation affect older adults just as much as younger users.

The idea that adulthood automatically brings digital resilience simply doesn't reflect reality. Human psychology doesn't change overnight because the law says someone is no longer a minor.

Are we treating the symptom instead of the cause?

Many policy discussions focus on limiting children's exposure to certain platform features. That is certainly one way to reduce harm. But it also raises another question.

If infinite scrolling, autoplay, excessive notifications or engagement-driven recommendations are considered problematic for children, shouldn't we also ask why these features exist in the first place?

Perhaps the problem isn't that children are using these features. Perhaps the problem is the way these features have been designed.

It feels similar to saying a road is too dangerous for children but perfectly acceptable for everyone else, instead of asking whether the road itself needs to be made safer.

Children deserve protection. So do adults.

This is not an argument against child protection. Quite the opposite.

Children deserve stronger safeguards because they are still developing emotionally and cognitively. But many of the techniques used by digital platforms are designed to influence universal human behaviours—attention, curiosity, habit, reward and social validation.

These are not uniquely children's vulnerabilities. They are human vulnerabilities.

If regulation focuses only on protecting children, we risk leaving the underlying design incentives untouched. The result is a digital environment where platforms continue to optimise for engagement, while regulators simply decide which age groups deserve additional protection from that engagement.

Maybe it is time to think differently

What if we shifted the conversation? Instead of asking how to build child-safe platforms, what if we asked how to build human-safe platforms?

A human-safe platform would still include additional protections for children where appropriate. But its starting point would be different. It would assume that digital services should respect human attention, autonomy and wellbeing by design, regardless of the user's age.

That doesn't mean banning recommendation systems or eliminating personalisation.

It means asking whether certain design choices genuinely help users or merely maximise the time they spend on a platform.

It means questioning whether success should continue to be measured primarily by engagement.

Designing for people, not age groups

The internet has become part of everyday life for almost everyone. Children use it. Parents use it. Grandparents use it. Teachers, doctors, engineers, policymakers and students all use the same digital platforms.

Yet our regulatory approach often assumes that harmful design only becomes a concern when children are involved. That feels increasingly disconnected from reality.

•  If a platform design is genuinely manipulative, it deserves scrutiny regardless of who is using it.

• If a feature supports wellbeing, transparency and user choice, it benefits everyone.

Perhaps that should become the principle that guides the next generation of digital regulation.

Not child-safe platforms. Human-safe platforms. Because what is good for children is good for the rest of us too.