It’s not politically simple:
Barriers and legislation make us feel safe. It empowers the state. The state can feel it is doing its duty.

Education empowers the individual – and the state’s fulfilment of it’s (assumed?) responsibility to keep young people safe is conditional on the behaviour of young citizens who it cannot directly control.

(You can probably replace state with ‘parent’ in the above argument and find it still broadly works if you want to take that level of analysis…)

It’s not philosophically simple
Imagine two countries each with 100 young people in. Both start with an equal range of risks and opportunities for young people accessing the internet.

The first uses legislation and restriction to control young peoples internet access. Opportunities are massively curtailed for everyone, but – no-one comes to significant harm.

In the second, education is used to equip young people to navigate risk online. The full realm of opportunities are open to them, but, 2 young people come to harm.

Can we trade really accept the increase in harm in order to gain the increase in opportunity of the second option?

(This thought experiment could do with a lot more development – and is a bit of a straw man to come back to later. I’m sure others out there have worked on similar thought experiments – all pointers welcome…)

It’s not practically simple
The skills and literacies to make the most of the online world, whilst managing negative aspects of the web, are complex and nuanced ones.

The investment to develop the depth of skills needed for effective engagement with the web is significant.

Why complicate things?
It’s far too each for the debate about young people’s rights and safety to end up wholly driven by emotion.

But in this case – I’m not sure emotion is going to get us the right answers. (Emotional responses are pat of it of course – but they’re only one part). We need some real discussion and deep thinking about this one…

The BBC suggestion that children/young people only speak to people they know in ‘real life’ is futile and also wasteful – imagine telling your children only to speak to people they know at school or at playgroups/youth clubs!! I think these kinds of ‘limiting’ rules are less effective than positive guidance on how to do/use things.

Any ‘code’ would have to be drawn up by people with knowledge and interest – that includes parents, teachers & practitioners, web developers & managers and of course children & young people.

I think social networking sites should probably be held to be more accountable too – if you create a network and are then not able to manage it effectively because you didn’t plan for how many people will use it and therefore can’t effectively manage it arguably you are negligent. If you set up a childrens play group you would be expected to provide an adult:child ratio appropriate to the age level of the children you work with – perhaps something similar should apply to online networks that allow children/young people to register?

There is indeed a parallel. With road safety we educate young people, and give guidance to help them navigate risks – and in particular, be aware of their limitations in terms of judging speed/distance etc.

An ‘Internet Highway Code’ is an interesting idea – although that highlights two spaces where the crucial role of young people’s participation in their own protection comes in. Firstly, any code would have to be drafted very much between young people and adults.

The possibility of a code emerging that was unrealistic and did not match the reality of young people’s lives is high if the code contents is not very carefully negotiated between young people and adults (and a diversity of adults who champion both opportunity and safety). (I.e. young people must participate in the setting up of the structures for their protection).

A code cannot be taken as a set of rules to apply from age 0 – 19. And it cannot operate alone. Here is where the online realm is different from the road – and from a highway code. A highway code sets up clear expectations between drivers and pedestrians. There is no need for the code to be different for a 5 year old from a 15 year old. However, a parent may encourage a 5 year old to always hold their hand near the road, or may negotiate other developmental-stage-appropriate restrictions with the young person. Online, a) there may be a case for different guidance for different ages, and b) that process of negotiation to play an even larger role.

Out of time to reflect more on this right now. But I think when I’m talking ‘participation in protection’ that there is a literature on young people’s involvement in care proceedings that has explored this a lot – and I’ll see what I can do to track that literature down. (All pointers welcome…)

On the otherhand thats not to overlook that from my own experience there are a lot of young people that are not assessing risks when online. I like the ‘Internet Highway Code’ idea!