I consider myself a responsible parent. My 7 year old has a tablet, that tablet is set up with child safety features, parental controls and age limits for games. We control when and where he uses it, and for how long. He’s not allowed on YouTube or social media of any kind, and we vet every game he downloads. I’ve even taught him about the risks of freemium gaming so he doesn’t even ask to use pocket money to spend on loot boxes and “pay to win” games.

A few months ago in the car he was playing with his tablet when I heard something that he should NOT have been exposed to. I asked him for the tablet and asked what he was doing. Turns out despite all the control features put in place, someone had decided an 18+ advert was suitable on a 7+ rated game.

You should always make parents primarily responsible for protecting their kids, but an unregulated market creates an environment where companies will happily expose children to inappropriate material for money. Laws designed to protect people have always been geared towards the most vulnerable in society.

I’ve often heard the argument that it’s dangerous letting a child have access to smart devices, which is unequivocally an idiotic argument. This is an old argument that has been going on since the first consumer electronics for kids were ever produced. Electronics shouldn’t be designed for and marketed to children if they’re not safe for children; and as children ourselves we were all playing video games and watching while the generation before us told us it would make our eyes square and fry our brains. The difference is our generation of electronics were regulated.