Before the internet & 1:1 devices for kids: We had libraries in schools. They were curated, they were limited in scope. No one complained “this library doesn’t contain all the information in the world”. Teachers, students, families accepted that even if it wasn’t perfect, even if something may have been missing, it contained alot of useful information for students. There were heated debates over “book bans” - should a specific book be included and made available to a student or not. But regardless of what the school decided, parents ultimately had final authority. Parents could give additional access to their children by taking them to the town or county library or buying books for them. School gave limited, approved information. Parents could give more.

When the internet and 1:1 devices came into schools, parents were told “technology is the future” and “your child has access to the information of the world”. The assumption = more information is beneficial to children. (And you can argue any single case to prove this is true (child “A” was positively affected from getting access to information “Y”, but it became harder to track or measure if child “B” was negatively affected by having access to information “Z”). Regardless of what is true, we didn’t have the governance to properly measure this. It’s easy to tell a story about Child A, it’s hard to get the data to tell an accurate story about Child B. So it’s easier to speak about the benefits, but much harder to articulate or show data to discuss Child B.

Governance Issues:

As Kids were given full access, and as Schools are not Tech Professionals, they took on the job of trying to “reduce” the open internet into something reasonable for kids to interact in. If you have ever tried to do this yourself for your children, especially as they get older, you will see how impossible it gets. Parents often give up, or just keep it away as long as possible, but it’s not reasonably managable, in part because everything digitally is constantly changing with no change control abilities for schools or parents. So it’s a never ending job where you are always on the defense.

Can a responsible adult or institution define, verify, and enforce the boundary of a child’s digital environment?

There was a time they likely could do this in a reasonable way. It is now out of control and nearly impossible to manage.

Blacklist

“Block what you don’t want”

• Boundary = undefined

• Control = reactive

• Verification = not possible in advance

• Default state = accessible unless blocked

Whitelist

“Add what you want”

• Boundary = explicitly defined

• Control = proactive

• Verification = possible before exposure

• Default state = blocked unless approved

Observability: You can enumerate all allowed environments

Responsible Party Defines

• what is accessible

• under what conditions