Let’s build a community internet for kids

A growing number of people seem to agree that the internet is bad for children – they say it’s addictive, damaging to self-esteem, maybe even a hostile environment. In the past year, several countries have begun to require age verification or restrictions for minors. At the end of June in the US, the House of Representatives it has passed of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, the latest in a series of laws aimed at protecting children online. After a few days, Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of those surveyed in the United States preferred to restrict the use of social media to anyone under the age of 16. something – no matter what – it must be done.

But even as politicians chase sophisticated and dubious ways to keep kids off the Internet, the alternative is to look them in the face: Use money to make it better. And, luckily, I have an idea: Tax the big tech companies, and give that money to build what we should call the public Internet for children.

First, what and Internet for children in public? I’m not talking about a different service like France’s proto-internet Minitelbut something similar to the “public road on the highway” by Ben Tarnoff provided in Internet for People – or, more realistically, the 20th century compulsion to watch children’s television. The goal would be to support new or existing online funds that meet two criteria: They serve children, and they do not work for profit. Beyond that, the options are plentiful. A few who have received help:

These services may be new or existing, run by organizations or individuals, created and maintained by children or adults, and accessible by small groups or anyone online. The main goal would be one that almost everyone agrees is beneficial: reducing the profit targets of the lives of children and young people on the Internet.

Almost every popular criticism of social media is, in one way or another, about its negative financial incentives. Critics warn of “dark systems” that they say are predatory that allow companies to manipulate users and continuously expand, or aggressive advertising based on data collection, or control groups that operate at very low cost. While each complaint is valid, years of leaks and court filings show that companies always prioritize the welfare of users and the need for action and profit — a concern that only grows as they divert resources to AI.

Even well-intentioned, philanthropic activities exist in this universe. Parenting networks are linked on Facebook and other platforms that are very hostile to social interaction or on private websites that have to support themselves with ads that are often distracting.

Many people are developing ways to create a less vampiric internetbut at the policy level, we have seen two options proposed: punish companies until they change their business requirements, or drive everyone of vulnerable age offline. An entire section of internet privacy law is centered around taking things away from people – taking away adults’ ability to use the internet at will, while taking away children’s access to social media and creating content without giving anything in return.

Meanwhile, the evidence shows that the so-called “reasonable” solution is difficult to implement and highly flawed. Australia introduced a law to ban young people’s use of social media last year, but it appears to be ineffective, a study suggests. more than 80 percent of children save the opportunity. Age-based systems remain at the same time circumventable and deleterious to privacy. The US is facing its own real challenges. A complete absence current privacy laws include security threats to the collection of age-verifying information. Congress MPs have asked whether it is very deceptive The Trump administration will (or, based on its destruction of government agencies, even if it can) enact a safe and secure Internet policy.

Children’s public Internet takes the same problem from another angle. Instead of forcing the existing web environment, it can be expanded with new and better methods. And yes, I mean it good goodnot just in a moral sense but a practical one. There has never been a better time to make public alternatives to mainstream technology. Small, non-profit projects may be smaller and more complex than businesses, but they can’t be suffocated by ads, microtransactions, AI boondoggles, and other corporate hallmarks. it’s just that they don’t care if people like his stuff.

Will some kids have Instagram and TikTok, or get the idea of ​​”kid stuff” on the internet? Sure. But there is a never-ending appeal to find a new club that your parents won’t join. (Incidentally, many kids are already trying this on private services like Discord, which are hampered by ageism and aggressive money laundering by the AI ​​tools themselves. many young people hate it) And anyway, how cool or “big” is the group of social networks where people are afraid saying “murder” is “lesbian”?

Internet legal expert Eric Goldman – who wrote the 2025 academic paper to describe the problems and ideas that already exist in relation to child protection – shows that there he was the first attempt at creating a children’s Internet: the kids.us high quality internet. The area was little used and eventually abandoned. But it’s an early example of people realizing the value of a youth-oriented social network, an idea that makes perfect sense today, when the Internet is at the center of everyone’s life – it just needs more than a well-known address to succeed.

Some would say that young people just need to stay offline, time, and swap screens to catch the old fashioned weed. I am not immune to this – I am the parent of a young child who discovered YouTube. But even before the covid-19 pandemic, many children the world without the internet was difficult. Rebuilding the space is important, but giving people an online alternative to Big Tech is more constructive (and, it seems, possible) than sending them away. looking at the wall.

Instead, some opportunities go to Big Tech already they exist to attract children’s attention, often in the worst way – sites like 4chan and Telegram groups for cartoons. These functions are glad to leave age laws and other restrictions to prevent children from accessing while giving their rights to adult adversaries.

And while this program may benefit children in the immediate future, the goal may be to make the Internet a better place for everyone. Open source software can be adapted to serve all ages, public websites can be useful for adults as well as children, and any successful project can be developed for adults. Similar to city managed broadbandand adjacent to the technical community Tarnoff mentioned digital sewer socialismit can provide the necessary competition that pushes technology companies to provide better services. At this point, even these companies can see a nominal tax as better than tough laws and as a good PR opportunity.

There is, of course, a lot of useful information to share. You may be required to meet certain requirements: to block commercials and users (e.g a stand for non-profit fictional platforms Archive of Our Own), perhaps, is a requirement for any program to be open. There is the issue of which government agency will oversee the program, which corporate groups are taxed, who will evaluate the aid, and how to evaluate its effectiveness, for example.

But most of the obvious objections seem strange. A beneficiary or others will have a high level of protection or partial failure, but certainly with less harm compared to their commercial counterparts. This program will be a lightning rod for complaining about government administration and culture war issues, but that’s about it cancer vaccine. When nothing seems to be going right, why not move the fence and try something new?

The US government helped create the Internet – and for all the flaws of the digital world, it’s a broken place that needs to be fixed. It is time for the government to help create again.