Do you recall the days when parents had to tell their kids to stay home before the streetlights came on and to avoid talking to strangers? Times have changed and now parents install surveillance applications and hastily change privacy settings, replacing those charming times.

Meta’s recent announcement that Instagram users under 16 will need parental approval to livestream or unblur potentially risqué direct messages is just the latest chapter in the eternal struggle between keeping kids safe and letting them develop independence in a world that increasingly exists online.

The tech giant is rolling out these changes first to users in the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia before expanding globally. They’re also extending their “teen account” safeguards to Facebook and Messenger, which include private accounts by default, blocking messages from strangers, limiting sensitive content, and even sending bedtime reminders. On paper, it all makes great sense. Who wouldn’t want to protect kids and young minds from the wild west of the internet? However, as is often the case with parenting, what is straightforward in theory soon becomes complicated in reality.

These precautions are like putting kids safety lock on one cupboard while leaving the rest of the home vulnerable. The internet is a constantly growing universe of platforms and opportunities, not simply Facebook and Instagram. If you block one avenue, 10 more will appear overnight. Digital natives, today’s kids are so proficient with technology that most parents appear to be still learning how to operate the VCR. If there’s one absolute truth about teenagers throughout history, it’s their remarkable ability to find workarounds to whatever boundaries adults establish.

This isn’t to say Meta’s efforts aren’t well-intentioned or that parents shouldn’t be involved in digital lives of their kids. However, there is something questionable about this strategy that seems more like treating the symptoms than the illness.

Technically sound in theory but utterly ignorant of human nature in practice, it’s the digital counterpart of abstinence-only education. The world doesn’t have to be this way, as author Neil Gaiman once said. Things may be different. And indeed, our approach to digital lives of kids could stand to be different too.

Throughout history, societies have grappled with how to prepare kids for adult realities. In medieval times, kids as young as 7 were apprenticed to learn trades and crafts, gradually being introduced to adult responsibilities under supervision. The Industrial Revolution and compulsory education changed this model, creating the modern concept of childhood as a protected period. But even then, kids weren’t completely sheltered from reality – they were taught how to navigate it.

Consider how we approach other potentially risky aspects of growing up. We don’t simply ban teenagers from ever getting behind the wheel of a car because driving is dangerous. Instead, we create learner’s permits, practice in parking lots, and provide driver’s education. We recognize that complete prohibition isn’t practical or helpful; what serves young kids better is guided experience and education about how to handle powerful tools responsibly.

The digital world merits the same strategy. What if we made more of an effort to educate true digital literacy instead of depending on corporate security measures or training parents in digital surveillance? Not just the technical aspects of using technology, but also the ability to think critically in order to negotiate its emotional and social complications. How to recognize manipulation, how to protect personal information, how to evaluate the reliability of information, and perhaps most importantly, how to maintain a healthy relationship with these platforms that are engineered to be addictive.

The irony of our current approach is that it often leaves kids vulnerable in unexpected ways. A teen whose online activities have been heavily monitored may find themselves completely unprepared when they inevitably encounter situations beyond parental controls. Like the new college boy who goes wild the first time they’re away from strict parents, teens who haven’t developed their own internal compass for navigating digital spaces may be more susceptible to manipulation when they eventually encounter it.

This mirrors what happened during the early days of internet adoption. In the 1990s, parents panicked about chat rooms and stranger danger online. When they ultimately accessed these platforms in secret, individuals who were prohibited from using them often became the most susceptible, whereas those who were trained to use them improved their awareness of possible dangers. The complexity of today’s social media environment makes education even more important.

Recent research from the Digital Futures Commission found that kids who are gradually given appropriate digital independence, coupled with ongoing conversations about online experiences, develop better judgment than those who either have no guidance or are excessively restricted. It’s the digital version of the old saying about teaching someone to fish versus giving them a fish – except in this case, it’s teaching them to swim in increasingly deep waters rather than keeping them confined to the kiddie pool until suddenly throwing them into the ocean.

Take the example of Finland, which began incorporating full digital literacy into its elementary school curriculum. In addition to learning how to utilize technology, students also learn how to evaluate social media critically, spot false information, and comprehend the economic strategies of “free” sites. The outcome? Finnish teenagers consistently demonstrate more sophisticated understanding of how they’re being manipulated by algorithms and better strategies for maintaining mental health while using social media.

Contrast this with the approach in many other countries, where digital education often amounts to little more than warnings about “internet bad guys” and instructions on how to create a password. This simplistic approach fails to prepare young people for the actual challenges they’ll face online; not just obvious predators, but subtler forms of manipulation, from FOMO-inducing influencer content to politically polarizing algorithmic rabbit holes.

The story of Olivia, a 15-year-old from San Diego, illustrates the limitations of the surveillance-based approach. Her parents installed monitoring software on her phone, checking her messages and limiting her screen time through an app. “I just got a second phone,” she explained matter-of-factly. “Most of my friends have one – we call them our ‘parent phones’ and our ‘real phones.” The truth is that the surveillance software gave her parents a false sense of security while making her talks even covert, beyond their control or support.

On the other hand, Marcus, a 16-year-old whose parents used a different approach, have frequent dinner discussions regarding social media trends. He remarked, “My dad asks about Instagram like he’s actually interested, not simply checking up on me, even though he doesn’t have it. We discussed why individuals engage in risky behavior online to gain attention while that strange ‘challenge’ was going around. It wasn’t a sermon; instead, he inquired about my thoughts. Marcus felt comfortable showing his parents concerning content he encountered rather than hiding his online life from them.

This dynamic isn’t new. In the 1980s, parents worried about Dungeons & Dragons corrupting youth. In the 1950s, it was comic books. In the 1920s, it was the corrupting influence of cinema. Each moral panic about new media led to calls for restriction rather than education, and each time, young people found their way to the forbidden content anyway, just without the guidance that might have helped them interpret it.

Meta’s new safety features, while well-intentioned, may risk reinforcing the idea that protection comes primarily through restriction rather than education. They place responsibility on parents to police boundaries rather than on society to better prepare young people. And they continue the pattern of treating young people as passive potential victims rather than as developing agents who need skills and knowledge.

A more balanced approach would combine reasonable safety guardrails with robust education. Indeed, there need to be certain safeguards in place by default for younger users. But in addition to this, there should be thorough instruction in digital literacy that goes beyond basic cautions. Young people must learn how to detect emotional manipulation in information, how to monetize their attention, and how to form positive online and offline interactions.

Parents, however, have to realize that digital parenting is not digital espionage. Continuous discussions regarding online experiences are still necessary even if monitoring software is available. In reality, extra surveillance might erode the trust that facilitates these discussions. As one wise teenage girl told researchers, “If you want to know what I’m doing online, just ask me. I’ll probably tell you if I don’t think you’ll freak out.”

Historical patterns suggest that our current approach of progressive restriction will ultimately fail. Just as prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking and abstinence-only education hasn’t prevented teen pregnancy, digital prohibition won’t create digitally responsible teenagers. What works better is acknowledgment of reality coupled with education about navigating it safely.

The philosopher Marshall McLuhan famously said, “We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.” Social media has changed how young people perceive the world, build relationships, and create identities. Helping kids comprehend how these technologies are influencing them must be part of our reaction; simply attempting to keep them away from them is not enough.

So while Meta’s new safety features aren’t inherently bad, they’re only a small piece of what should be a much more comprehensive approach. They treat the digital world as something dangerous from which young people need protection, rather than as a complex environment in which young people need education to thrive.

The most effective digital parents encourage candid conversations about their kid’s online experiences rather than having the most advanced monitoring tools. They are the ones who, instead of passing judgment, pose thought-provoking queries.  Instead of presenting themselves as flawless experts, they are the ones who admit their own difficulties with responsible technology use. And they’re the ones who recognize that digital citizenship, like all forms of citizenship, is something that must be taught rather than enforced.

Our attitude to young people’s online life has to go beyond the dichotomy of unlimited access or heavy-handed management as we advance into an ever more digital future. We need sophisticated digital education that understands both the serious threats and huge potential of online environments. We need to recognize that digital literacy is now as fundamental as traditional literacy, and deserves the same careful, developmental approach to teaching.

Restricting youth access to digital platforms until a certain age at which we believe them ready shouldn’t be the aim. Instead, it should be to gradually expose kids to these areas under the right supervision, assisting them in gaining the discernment necessary to handle progressively more complicated circumstances on their own. After all, a strong internal compass for identifying possible risks and making informed decisions is the best safety feature, not parental control settings.

Furthermore, it’s possible that the younger generation is teaching the older one digital navigation in many instances. Many parents are digital immigrants who find it difficult to comprehend the platforms that their kids utilize on a daily basis.  Establishing a place for reciprocal learning, in which kids share their knowledge and parents admit their ignorance, helps foster the trust required for significant advice in areas where adults actually possess wisdom.

Therefore, we should acknowledge Meta’s limits even as we applaud their attempts to make the internet a safer place for young people. True digital safety doesn’t come from features controlled by corporations or parents. It comes from education, open communication, and a balanced approach that acknowledges both the very real risks of online spaces and the very real limitations of trying to keep young people away from them.

As the writer Ursula K. Le Guin wisely noted, “There are no right answers to wrong questions.” Maybe we should explore how we can better train young people for digital citizenship rather than how we can better limit their digital activity.  Instead of being a never-ending game of technology whack-a-mole, that question may really lead to durable answers, making it one that merits our combined ingenuity and dedication.