Have Social Media Companies Deliberately Designed Their Platforms To Harm Children? Written by Dr Amal Punchihewa, Palmerston North, New Zealand, for SrilankaNZ (https://www.srilankanz.co.nz) Newspaper and published on June 5, 2026.
SrilankaNZ, ශ්රී LankaNZ, is a freely distributed Sri Lankan Community Newspaper that aims to reach a Sri Lankan population of over 18,000 all over New Zealand. The demand for entertainment in literary media itself gave birth to ශ්රී LankaNZ.
The article has been written after a lot of secondary research, study and analysis by the author (Amal). Amal is an advocate of Responsible, Safe, Accessible and Universal technologies, especially in Broadcast and Media, addressing AI and Sustainability. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Media Technical Network of IET and also a Fellow and CEng, Chartered Professional Engineer. He is also a Fellow of the Engineering new Zealand, Senior Member of IEEE - Broadcast Technology Society and a Distinguished Lecturer. The views expressed are his personal views.
How do you use social media?
How do you mentor or guide children in the use of social media?
Have Social Media Companies Deliberately Designed Their Platforms To Harm Children?
You can respond to my LinkedIn post or EngX post.
Recently, a US jury heard claims that some of the world’s biggest social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to harm children and cause addiction. Meta and YouTube are in the spotlight as a landmark trial began in Los Angeles, a case that could reshape how tech companies are regulated worldwide.
The Chair of Law and Technology at the University of Auckland expressed her views on TV One of TVNZ recently. She said it is about the design, and it is no longer about the content that the platform publishes and people share. But actually, how companies like Meta, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok have developed mechanisms in order to keep user/audience attention. Some content we know has been harmful, can be harmful, but is usually protected. What is different about it? What is the technology that they are using, and why is this a crucial need for them like this? So there is still the question that is still outstanding and needs to be answered whether the design falls under the kind of protection of legislation in the United States, meaning that this is still part of the freedom of speech and the free design, how they design, is protected, or the design is actually outside. Does their design actually come under current regulations? What are the consequences? If it is designed to be addictive, it requires strong regulation.
As explained in my previous articles on Sri LankaNZ, harmful content is recommended by various algorithms, mostly.
Recently, a reminder on the misuse of AI came in line with World Radio Day. We published articles about World Radio Day celebration, but it is worthwhile reminding this year’s celebration, as it reminds the trust required in content services, especially for news.
Explainability of artificial intelligence (AI) and the ethical aspects of recommendation algorithms have been widely discussed in many forums.
The radio broadcasting industry celebrated World Radio Day (WRD) on 13 February 2026. This year’s theme, announced by UNESCO, highlighted threats to trust, particularly arising from AI.
WRD is a global celebration observed annually on 13 February, recognising and thanking broadcasters for the news they deliver, the voices they amplify, and the stories they share.
The theme for World Radio Day 2026, announced by UNESCO, was “Radio and Artificial Intelligence: AI is a tool, not a voice.”
Today, AI presents new opportunities and challenges not just for innovation but also for deepening radio broadcasters’ connection with their listeners. As the WRD theme reminds us, AI is a tool, not a voice.
When used ethically and responsibly to support professional judgement, creativity and public service values, AI can be a powerful tool in strengthening audience trust. However, technology alone does not build trust. Radio broadcasters must use AI appropriately as a tool to uphold their responsibilities and fulfil their role as radio broadcasters.
Certain AI technologies, such as speech-to-text and language translation, offer significant utility for broadcasters. At the same time, potential negative consequences of AI – such as deep-fake threats – can be addressed through technical standards like C2PA, the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity.
C2PA is an open standard designed to certify the origin and history of digital content, functioning like a tamper-evident ‘birth certificate’ embedded within media files. By providing cryptographically signed provenance information, C2PA helps publishers, creators, and consumers verify the authenticity of digital content and combat misinformation.
Radio broadcasters must amplify voices while safeguarding the trust that audiences place in them. The careful selection of technologies, including AI, is essential to harness their benefits responsibly. While embracing technologies such as AI, radio broadcasters must remain guided by the fundamental principles of inclusiveness, universal access to information, and the provision of entertainment and education to all audience segments without creating divides.
AI can assist broadcasters with repetitive and routine tasks, enabling them to focus their human-centred creativity on producing content that respects creative rights and serves the public interest.
On 13 February 2026, broadcasters around the world marked World Radio Day, reflecting on the trust they have built with their audiences and reaffirming their commitment to maintaining it.
Focusing on platforms and social media, it is worth noting that Meta owns a diverse portfolio of platforms, messaging apps, and technology ventures, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Threads, and Reality Labs.
Recently, the Head of Global Safety (HGS) of Meta visited New Zealand and pushed back against calls to ban children from social media. In light of measures being considered by the New Zealand government, the company cautioned that bans alone will not prevent kids from going online, as authorities weigh whether to follow Australia’s lead.
The HGS noted that the challenge with a ban is that it is impossible to block the entire Internet. Speaking to New Zealand public TV broadcaster One News, Meta explained that an outright ban can create a false sense of security, as machines and workarounds can circumvent safeguards. The company also highlighted that platforms can inadvertently drive users towards less safe online experiences, citing Australia’s under-16 ban as an example.
The HSG recommended building “team accounts” with parental oversight, designed with three main concerns in mind: who children are connecting with, what kind of content they are seeing, and how much time they are spending online. Children cannot access these apps without parental permission.
The HGS also emphasised that responsibility for children’s online safety is shared. Meta does not place all the responsibility on a single party; instead, the company maintains that a safe experience involves a partnership between parents, the platform, and other stakeholders.
There is no single fix. While there are no silver bullets, addressing the issue requires more than planning and restricting access, with a greater emphasis on education and stronger regulatory frameworks needed. The New Zealand Online Safety Group remained unconvinced. Although it acknowledged that Meta had responded to growing calls for safer products, the trust it once placed in these platforms had been fundamentally eroded, with meaningful action coming only after years of exposure and harm.
You can read my other articles previously published on this site.
