Age Appropriate Digital Services for Young People: Major Reforms
Citation: R. Farthing, K. Michael, R. Abbas and G. Smith-Nunes, "Age Appropriate Digital Services for Young People: Major Reforms," in IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 40-48, 1 July 2021, doi: 10.1109/MCE.2021.3053772.
Abstract:
Young people's digital lives are bigger than they have ever been. This means that realizing young people's rights now requires a concerted focus on the digital world as well. Terms and Conditions (from Cookies Policies to Terms of Service) are an important part of young people's digital worlds because they set the “rules of engagement” between digital products and young service users. However important, these Terms and Conditions rarely recognize young people's rights, let alone uphold them. This article outlines some of the ways Terms and Conditions fail young people, and why this is problematic from moral, legal, and commercial perspectives. This suggests there is a critical need for Terms and Conditions that uphold rights, and that a Standard around Terms and Conditions may be an effective way of addressing this problem.
The size and scale of young people's[1] digital lives are truly staggering; there are over one billion children and young people online,[2] and every day another 170 000 go online for the first time.[3] During lockdown, one U.S. survey found that nearly half of American children were spending six or more hours a day looking at screens (see Figure 1), up 500% from pre-COVID levels.[4] This was in part due to the widespread adoption of Google Classroom in School districts in America, although there has been much discussion over whether the free tablets and Internet connectivity did enable remote schooling or in fact increased “other” nonschool related screen time. Young people and their parents, particularly those who had not previously accessed the Internet away from School or work were instantaneously thrust into a new school mode that had purported unintended consequences.[5]
Figure 1. Child uses phone. Image: Mirko Sajkov – Pixabay.
In a Pew Research Center survey, over half of those aged 13 to 17 reported that they were worried about how much time they spend on their cellphones, social media, and video games.[6],[46] This would certainly have increased during the self-isolation and lockdowns of COVID-19. For example, in a recent study centered on digital technology use by Irish children and families during the pandemic, 71% of children reported increased smartphone usage.[7] An increase was also observed in the use of social media (72%), gaming consoles (66%), and direct/instant messaging (65%).[7] Childhood is now lived online and offline, and what happens in digital playgrounds can have offline repercussions. Young people must be able to flourish in the digital world as they do in the physical world, and as such their “‘digital footprint” must be safeguarded within the context of COVID-19[8] and more generally.
The legislative and regulatory responses worldwide have been swift in an attempt to keep young people safe and enable them to flourish in the digital world, from online harms legislation such as the UK's Online Harms Bill[9] to Australia's Online Safety Act[10] to Rwanda's Child Online Protection Policy,[11] to international actions, such as the general comment being drafted by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, to enshrine young people's rights in the digital world.[12] This legislation and regulation aims to codify a benchmark below which services and products should not fall. Alongside this, there is an urgent need to protect young people through the development of soft laws in the form of Standards that will act to drive up industry norms and behavior and begin a discussion afresh about what “optimal” might look like in digital ecosystems. Soft laws are not generally enforceable but they do provide explicit guidelines to industry about acceptable and unacceptable practices. The benefits of soft law, from a behavioral and anticipatory perspective, include signaling an intent to “enact hard law” and conveying factual and ethical details and beliefs pertaining to a specific topic area,[13] both of which are pivotal in protecting young people in the digital world.[14]
THE PROBLEM
Getting T&Cs right is particularly important because T&Cs claim to set the “rules of engagement” for product and service users.[15] And yet, T&Cs have widely come to be seen as symbolic of the unfair power asymmetries between users and technology companies. They have been criticized for being “click-through,” excessively long, drafted in a style that actively discourages reading[16] and binding people to terms and conditions without any meaningful consent.[17] Indeed, for some critics of big tech T&Cs have come to be seen as the most pernicious “violations” of consumers expectations,[18] and even as “sadistic.”[19]
For young digital service users, the problem is arguably more acute. Too often, T&Cs:
Are not presented in age appropriate formats, even where services and products are clearly aimed at younger users: This is often because of legal and technical jargon, formatting that relies heavily on plain text or simply the timing of when T&Cs are presented to young people—often the most inopportune times in the user experience are chosen as a means or persuasion, making it all too easy to “click through” without reading.[20] For example, a splash page incorporating graphics contrasted against a descriptive text-based policy may entice a young gamer to bypass T&Cs, distracted by the immediate potential to play as opposed to spending minutes deciphering legalese and possibly even requiring parental consent. Young people have often pointed out that the presentation of T&Cs can render them meaningless, rendering it impossible to make an informed decision on whether or not to take an appropriate action, e.g., to install a piece of software on their smartphone.
“I tried [reading T&Cs] once and it was just … you don't understand it, it just goes through your head so there's not much point.”[21]
The format of T&C also fails to highlight ways young people can seek redress if they are breached, which young people tell us time and time again they want to see.[22]
Fail to offer fair terms: That is T&Cs can sometimes fail to meet basic consumer law obligations, especially around informed consent and parental consent, which in practice would nullify a contract between two parties (e.g., the company offering the service and the end-user, being the young person and their guardian). While legal systems vary greatly, broadly speaking children are only allowed to enter into contracts on a limited basis under the presumption that they may not comprehend the consequences. It is unlikely that many standard T&Cs would meet minimum legal requirements to create a binding contract between young users and a service provider in most places.
Create and enable a service that, in itself, is not age appropriate: If a product or service fails to recognize that young people use it, it might not accordingly offer an appropriate product or service. This may mean T&Cs ask fundamentally inappropriate things of young users, such as consent to have their data collected and sold for marketing purposes or agree to push notifications that arrive in what are clearly young people's bedtimes, or turn on video cameras in order to embed their real-time image in gamified experiences invading young people's personal privacy and property (many examples of age inappropriate and “risky” services have been documented.[23], [24]
Improperly trade off young people's rights with commercial and business incentives: Where a young person's best interests should always be the primary consideration, too often T&Cs create the conditions for a product or service that prioritizes industry needs and commercial interests before the best interest of their younger users; for example, in-gaming purchases linked to default payment settings on tablet operating systems.[25] While it is true that parents bear a great deal of responsibility when they preload their credit card details onto App stores, there also needs to be acknowledgement by gaming providers that they should not tempt young people by offering in-gaming purchase options that deliberately influence a behavioral decision. For example, young people may choose to “grind” through and earn the new skin with points, which generally can take hundreds of hours of playing time, or they may simply circumvent this process with the suggested “buy credits” that automatically allow you to buy a new skin. Young people's rights should not be “balanced” or traded off against business models driven by profit and sales maximization goals.
Inappropriatelyresponsibilizeyoung people and parents: That is, T&Cs often create inappropriate responsibilities for safety and data privacy for young users before they are capable of accepting these responsibilities, and/or their guardians who are often equally ill equipped and are already busy.[26] For example, many T&Cs enshrine “opt-out” requirements for basic privacy and safety features that place the responsibility with guardians or children to actively “opt-out.” Cookie policies that require a parent or indeed a child to actively opt-out of data collection or targeted advertising, for example, violates regulations that prohibit data collection and advertising to under-13 or under-16 year olds. But cookies policies are not alone in these violations, with many social media platforms requiring children or parents to turn off risky features, such as geolocation or friend recommendations. It cannot be solely up to guardians nor children to create a legal, safe user experience; these responsibilities must instead rest with service and product providers.[27]
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Getting T&Cs right for young people is a moral, legal, and business imperative. It requires direct stakeholders, such as companies offering services and their affiliates, to consider the context of their end-users as having particular needs, and “by design” meet those expectations as requirements.
Moral Imperative
There is a moral imperative to realize children's rights in the digital world. Young people's rights, codified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[28] apply to young people wherever they “are” and wherever they “go” including digital environments. Too often these are overlooked in the way we build and govern the digital world, including T&Cs. Additionally, intrinsic linkages between the end-user's social-cyber-physical circumstances are often not addressed, if considered at all, and the implications may be far-reaching.
This can have catastrophic effects from enabling online harms (e.g., where the terms of service allow the profiles of under 18 year olds to be recommended or introduced to adult strangers[29]), potential offline harms (e.g., the availability of a young person's physical geospatial coordinates viewable in an online service[30]), the spread of misinformation (e.g., where Community Standards allow mis/disinformation to be published and often promoted in young people's feeds by algorithms and big data analytics[31]) and inappropriate collection and sharing of children's personal data (e.g., where the privacy policies fail to recognize that data from under 18 year olds is afforded special protections, not to mention the sharing to partner and parent organizations). Improved T&Cs can ensure that digital service and products realize, rather than violate, young people's rights.
Legal Imperative
In the legal and policy domain, regulators are progressively acknowledging the importance of Published Standards for young people. For example, the UK's Age Appropriate Design Code[32] makes it a requirement for any information society service likely to be accessed by children—a very expansive target in itself—to present T&Cs in ways that are:
“clear and accessible… In every case you should provide information that is accurate and does not promise protections or standards that are not routinely upheld. This should help children or their parents make properly informed decisions about whether to provide the information required to access or sign up to your service in the first place, and to continue to use it. If you believe that you need to draft your terms and conditions in a certain way in order to make them legally robust, then you can provide child-friendly explanations to sit alongside the legal drafting.”
Importantly, it should be stipulated that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most ratified human rights treaty in the world. Globally, nation states are in agreement that the rights of children must be upheld. The recently released draft of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's General Comment on Children's Rights in relation to the Digital Environment requires all ratified states to:
“require businesses that impact on children's rights in relation to the digital environment to establish and implement regulatory frameworks, industry codes, and terms of services that adhere to the highest standards of ethics, privacy, and safety into the design, engineering, development, operation, distribution, and marketing of their technological products and services.”[33]
Commercial Imperative
But the imperative to develop and implement gold-standard T&Cs is more than both a moral calling and emerging legal requirement. It also makes good business sense. New start-ups invested in privacy-enhancing technology services have never been more in demand. Even big brands are now beginning to accept that privacy and security by design approaches help in the attraction and retention of end-users in the throes of massive data breach notifications. Tech companies in general are under increased scrutiny, demonstrated by several recent high-profile U.S. congressional hearings, most notably Mark Zuckerberg's 2018 hearing following the Cambridge Analytica scandal[34] and the 2020 hearing into the Facebook platform, misinformation, and the 2020 election.
Gen Z is increasingly becoming known for its activism, so it would be especially good for tech companies to earn the trust of young people so they do not wind up on the receiving end of collective censure.[35] Ideological positions aside, it makes sense methodologically to design “with” young people “for” young people.[36], [37] If end-users believe that their data can remain private and secure, this can only act to reaffirm trust, and trust is crucial to business success.[38] Overly complex, “unfair,” click-through, and poorly visible T&Cs, which subsequently go unread, undermine trust, so much so that T&Cs have been described as “the biggest lie on the internet.”[39]
Whether a lie or simply a “blackbox,”[40] young people are acutely aware of this deception, as some young people who spoke to the 5Rights Foundation reflected:
“The companies are really smart because they know most people don't want to sit there reading, like paragraphs and paragraphs about it. And even if you did the way it's worded it's complicated, so they know people won't understand it.”[21]
“It's like … they're backing themselves up and saying ‘Well, it was stated in the terms and conditions which you agreed that you'd read’, and it's like really they know that no one would read it. So, I think that's when they can use it against us.”[41]
It is clear that T&Cs can be enhanced and made more appropriate for young people, and this is where P2089 becomes notably relevant.
A potential “end user” of improved T&Cs—a classroom teacher and joint author Genevieve Smith-Nunes—described the changes that the widespread implementation of this Standard might have on her work:
“The current T&Cs are impenetrable which makes it difficult to select and use appropriate digital services and tools in my classroom. Widespread use of this Standard would bring about much needed change in this area, making T&Cs accessible, feasible, and understandable for both students and educators. By making the T&Cs readable they could also be used as a tool for digital literacy and safety learning beyond the confines of the computing classroom. Young people would have the opportunity, space, and time of an educational setting to digest, discuss, and deconstruct the T&Cs. Young people would then ‘fully’ understand what they are actually signing up. And educators would also swiftly know which digital services and tool are suitable for their classrooms too.”
More specific age appropriate recommendations could be articulated in T&Cs to assist with avoiding anomalies. For example, parents or guardians of Junior school students are required to cosign an acceptable use policy with their 11–13 year olds, an agreement that students use only age appropriate services on the School's infrastructure. However, we flag here what we label as the classic “YouTube Exception,” defined as the right to turn a blind eye to the fact that Schools are asking parents and children to break with the Google policy, allowing 11 and 12 year olds to use YouTube on the School's wifi. Obviously, schools cannot be demanding that “students do the right thing” when they themselves are in conflict with their own guidance.
Smith-Nunes’ suggestion also speaks to the capacity for improved T&Cs to catalyze systemic changes in the system too. If young people are more “fully” aware of current T&Cs—and the business model that underpins them—they may be more likely object or abstain moving forward. Young people are, and always have been, some of society's most powerful advocates of progressive social change.
TOWARD A PROCESS OF CODESIGNING STANDARDS
The socioeconomic impacts of emerging technologies can cause unintended consequences when left unaddressed. Consumer technologies in particular that have become mobile, interconnected, and computationally powerful have particularly raised concerns with respect to inappropriate targeted digital services and content at young people. Recent announcements by some industry players is a cause for some glimmer of hope. These sporadic voices demonstrate that it is not futile to expect reforms to deeply rooted problems such as those we are faced with in the digital realm with respect to young people, terms, and conditions, and fairness. Though premature, big players will have to come into line with changes in order to win over regulators with greater transparency and accountability. If they do not, their long-term future is questionable.
One of the ways to combat negative social impacts and risks in emerging technologies is to engage in a process of codesign toward legislative reform, new regulations, codes, policies and procedures, guidelines and standards. The latter in particular can be successful though seemingly unenforceable when organizations are noncompliant. But standards are a way to draw a variety of stakeholders together to cocreate a benchmark by which all should strive to abide by. In a process of codesign, the end-user is not merely a participant in the collection of data, but a leading voice, alongside designers and developers of applications and new products. The power imbalance between producers and users is realigned, as new partnerships are envisaged and realized.
The IEEE P2089 working group that launched in November 2019 is the first in a family of standards focused on children's rights in a digital world based on the 5Rights principles, and establishes a framework for developing age appropriate digital services for situations where users are children.[42] The principles focus on empowering young people to translate and redraft a number of rights. They were developed from extensive consultations and “citizen's juries” with young people. These principles young people emphasized as critical were the rights to i) remove and control historical data online, ii) determine the nature of data exchanged online, iii) access appropriate support to ensure safety, iv) be educated about the use and design of technology, and v) develop digital skills to allow for a recognition of the purpose of technology. The P2089 working group is translating these calls from young people into an explicit focus on T&Cs in the following key areas a) recognition that the user is a child, b) has considered the capacity and upholds the rights of children, c) offers terms appropriate to children, d) presents information in an age appropriate way, and e) thereby offers a level of validation for service design decisions. The standard provides a specific impact rating system and evaluation criteria, and sets out how vendors, public institutions, and the educational sector can meet the criteria.
The working group (WG) consists of diverse stakeholder representation including, technologists, academics, researchers, lawyers, NGO staff and industry professionals, supported by the 5Rights Foundation. The WG ensures that they engage often with the primary stakeholders, inclusive of regulators, for their thoughts and consult widely with young people. For example, a video from one of the 5Rights data literacy workshops has captured the views of young people and presented them in a summative way.[43]
The Standard needs to be broad and encompassing, as we envisage a Standard that will be of use to anyone who runs or is establishing a digital service or product that is targeted at users under the age of 18. But it also needs to be concise, clear, and rigorous to ensure it codifies T&Cs that meet the urgent task of realizing children's rights and needs.
CONCLUSION AND LEARNINGS
There is a critical need for T&Cs that uphold children's rights. This is not only a moral, but also legal and business imperative. The P2089 Working Group is on track to develop a Standard that will drive industry to adopt concise, clear, and rigorous T&Cs for children. We are pleased to share that so far, the stakeholders we have consulted and who are working toward the development of this standard have been unified in their aim to support children toward reaching their full potential online with services that are designed to see them prosper in an educative, fun, and stimulating environment. More than anything else, this is being seen as an injection of innovation and not a barrier to entry; an opportunity to share some novel ways to meet the digital challenge head on with young people, and overcome some of those things that are not working to support children. In our ongoing reporting of the Standard's outcome, we will be sharing more about our codesign philosophy toward cooperative and consultative processes that we believe are the answer for future services provisioning.
A number of representative panels were presented at the November 2020 International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) Conference[44] and Public Interest University Network (PIT-UN).[45] Individuals wishing to learn more about aspects covered in the IEEE P2089 standard may refer to these panels to hear young people voice their concerns about digital rights, in addition to voices from academia, non-government organizations, and not-for-profits.
Having T&Cs that violate children's rights is unacceptable in today's digitally integrated world. The impacts of these T&Cs are not transient, they are with individuals for life as digital IDs and footprints permeate one's education, sociality, entertainment, sporting activities, and work adopted by organizations in every sector. We are seeking a redefinition of the power imbalance toward a fair exchange for young people. We are additionally seeking to acknowledge the best interests of children. It is not just about rightful access to services and online safety—as vitally important as these topics are—but it is about a call for digital equity in all its forms.
And of course, it is only right that the last word about this comes from a young person:
“I'm quite angry about the terms and conditions so I'd also say that, like shorten them and get to the point cos it's really annoying!” [21]
References
1. We hereafter refer to ‘young people’, as ‘children’ is often understood by young people to be infantilizing, “To be clear, we are speaking about users under the age of 18, who are bearers of special rights and protections under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,” signed Nov. 20, 1989, effective Sep. 2, 1990.
2. S. Livingstone, J. Byrne, and J. Carr, “One in Three: Internet governance and childrens rights,” UNICEF, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/795-one-in-three-internet-governance-and-childrens-rights.html
3. PWC, “Kids Digital. Media Report. for SuperAwesome,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://gertkoot.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/kids-digital-media-report-2019-.pdf
4. Parents Together Foundation, “Survey shows parents alarmed as kids’ screen time sky rockets during COVID-19 crisis,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://parents-together.org/survey-shows-parents-alarmed-as-kids-screen-time-skyrockets-during-covid-19-crisis/
5. A. Burroughs, “Schools strive for screen time balance in a complex equation,” EdTech, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/06/schools-strive-screen-time-balance-complex-equation
6. J. Jingjing, “How teens and parents navigate screen time and device distractions,” Pew Res. Center, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/08/22/how-teens-and-parents-navigate-screen-time-and-device-distractions/
7. DCU National Anti-Bullying Research Resource Centre, “KiDiCoTi: Kids’ digital lives in covid-19 Times: A comparative mixed methods study on digital practices, safety and wellbeing key findings from ireland, DCU,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://antibullyingcentre.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Short-report_Covid_for-media.pdf
8. UNICEF, “COVID-19 and childrens digital privacy,” UNICEF, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/stories/covid-19-and-childrens-digital-privacy
9. DCMS (UK), “Online Harms,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper
10. DITRDC (NZ), “Consultation on a new online safety act,” DITRDC, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/consultation-new-online-safety-act
11. MINICT (Rwanda), “Rwanda child online protection policy,” MINICT, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://minict.gov.rw/fileadmin/Documents/Policies2019/COP_Policy_Updated.pdf
12. UN Office of the High Commissioner, “UN committee on the rights of the child 2020: Draft general comment on childrens rights in relation to the digital environment,” OHCHR, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/GCChildrensRightsRelationDigitalEnvironment.aspx
13. J. E. Gersen, and E. A. Posner, “Soft law: Lessons from congressional practice,” Stanford Law Rev., vol. 61, 2008, Art. no. 573.
14. IEEE SA, “P2089—Standard for age appropriate digital services framework—based on the 5Rights principles for Children,” IEEE Standard Association, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://standards.ieee.org/project/2089.html
15. R. Pringle, “Narrative, design, and comprehension: connective technologies and their terms of service agreements,” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 40–46, Mar. 2016.
16. V. Plaut, and R. Bartlett, “Blind consent?,” A social psychological investigation non-readership click-through agreements,” Law Hum. Behav., vol. 36, pp. 293–311, 2011.
17. E. Luger, S. Moran, and T. Rodden, “Consent for All: Revealing the hidden complexity of terms and conditions,” in Proc. SIGGHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 2013, pp. 2678–2696.
18. S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, London, U.K. : Profile Books, 2019, p. 48.
19. N. Kim, Wrap around contracts: Foundations and Ramifications. Oxford, U.K. : Oxford Univ. Press, 2013.
20. B. Kidron, A. Evans, and J. Afia, “Disrupted Childhood: The Cost of Persuasive Design, 5Rights,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://5rightsfoundation.com/static/5Rights-Disrupted-Childhood.pdf
21. 5Rights Foundation, “The Internet on our own terms 5,” 5Rights, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://5rightsfoundation.com/uploads/internet-on-our-own-terms-a4.pdf
22. 5Rights Foundation, Youth Juries, 5Rights, (unpublished research), 2015.
23. Risky by Design, “The risks,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.riskyby.design/
24. K. Michael, In the Night Garden- Webcam test page, 2015. [Online]. Available: www.katinamichael.com/opinion/2015/9/15/in-the-night-garden-webcam-test-page
25. K. Albrecht, and K. Michael, “Weve got to do better,” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag.., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5–7, 2014.
26. E. Lievens, “The rights of the child in the digital environment: From empowerment to de-responsibilisation,” in Freedom Security Privacy: The Future of Childhood in the Digital World, 5Rights Foundation (Ed), London, U.K., pp. 152–162.
27. Childrens rights are human rights. They are fundamental and inalienable rights and freedoms that are afforded to all young people under 18 years old. They are codified in the UNs Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and cover civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights.
28. UN Office of the High Commissioner, “Convention on the rights of the child,” 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
29. C. Hoffman, “A man spied on young girls using Snapchat, police say. Heres how to protect your teen,” AZCentral.com, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2019/10/21/snapchat-location-feature-snap-map-used-in-several-arizona-crimes/4045867002/
30. R. Abbas, K. Michael, and M. G. Michael, “What can people do with your spatial data? Socio-ethical scenarios,” in Managing Security Issues and the Hidden Dangers of Wearable Technologies, A. Marrington, D. Kerr, and J. Gammack, Eds., Hershey, PA, USA : IGI Global, 2017, pp. 206–237.
31. K. Michael, and K. W. Miller, “Big data: New opportunities and new challenges, “Computer, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 22–24, Jun. 2013.
32. ICO (UK), “Age appropriate design code: A code of practice for online services,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-data-protection-themes/age-appropriate-design-a-code-of-practice-for-online-services-2-1.pdf, section 4
33. “UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2020 Draft General Comment on Childrens Rights in relation to the Digital Environment,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/GCChildrensRightsRelationDigitalEnvironment.aspx, section I39, emphasis added.
34. K. Michael, S. Kobran, R. Abbas, and S. Hamdoun, “Privacy, data rights and cybersecurity: Technology for good in the achievement of sustainable development goals,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Technol. Soc., Medford, MA, USA, 2019, pp. 1–13.
35. N. Singer, and K. Conger, “Google is fined \$170 million for violating childrens privacy on Youtube,” New York Times, Sep. 4, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube-fine-ftc.html
36. R. Abbas, H. Tootell, M. Freeman, and G. Ellmers, “Engaging young children as application design partners: A stakeholder-inclusive methodological approach,” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 38–47, 2018.
37. K. Michael, R. Abbas, “Caring for children Online: Co-designing in the public interest,” IEEE Standards Assoc.: Digit. Inclusion, Identity, Trust, Agency, Austria, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://standards.ieee.org/events/diita/dec-2019.html
38. S. Porat, “Why trust is a critical success factor for business today,” Forbes, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2017/07/07/why-trust-is-a-critical-success-factor-for-businesses-today/
39. J. A. Obar, and A. Oeldorf-Hirsch, “The biggest lie on the Internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services,” in Proc. 44th Res. Conf. Commun., Inf. Internet Policy, 2018, pp. 1–20.
40. K. Michael, R. Abbas, G. Roussos, E. Scornavacca, and S. Fosso-Wamba, “Ethics in AI and autonomous system applications design,” IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 114–127, Sep. 2020.
41. 5Rights Foundation 2015 Youth Juries (unpublished research).
42. 5Rights Foundation, “The 5Rights Framework,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://5rightsfoundation.com/about-us/the-5-rights/
43. 5Rights Foundation 2020 Terms and Conditions–5Rights Data Literacy Workshops, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://vimeo.com/421479845, Password: Terms@5Rights.
44. J. Bessant, R. Farthing, E. Howard, and Y. Bird, “What should tech in the public interest look like for Gen Z?,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Technol. Soc., Phoenix, AZ, USA, Nov 12–15, 2020.
45. B. Kidron, R. Farthing, A. Shah, and E. Luwemba, “Age appropriate published terms for children,” Public Int. Technol.–Univ. Netw. (PIT-UN)/IEEE ISTAS-20, Nov. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCRLKHMuhRw=PLNoVefpaPtVOrEHhJLnEE-KJ1Gx3ddTlz=8=15s
46. K. Michael, “Are you addicted to your smartphone, social media, and more?: New antisocial app could help,” IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 116–121, Oct. 2017.
Authors
5Rights Foundation, United Kingdom
Rys Farthing is the Director of project at 5Rights, London, U.K. She received the Ph.D. degree from Oxford University. Her research is around realizing young people's rights to participate. Contact her at rys@5rightsfoundation.com.
Arizona State University, USA
Katina Michael is a Professor with the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and the School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University. She is the Director of the Society Policy Engineering Collective. Contact her at katina.michael@asu.edu.
University of Wollongong, Australia
Roba Abbas is a Lecturer with the School of Business, University of Wollongong, Australia. She is a Co-Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society. Contact her at roba@uow.edu.au.
University of Cambridge, England
Genevieve Smith-Nunes is a Doctoral Student and education academic. She has taught computing in secondary school, and is currently researching creative computing, data ethics, and XR. Contact her at ges52@cam.ac.uk.
Citation: R. Farthing, K. Michael, R. Abbas and G. Smith-Nunes, "Age Appropriate Digital Services for Young People: Major Reforms," in IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 40-48, 1 July 2021, doi: 10.1109/MCE.2021.3053772.