LettersRules aren’t enough to keep children safe online. We need to start talking

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words. China has taken some of the most far-reaching steps globally to regulate children’s digital lives. From regulations limiting how long children can play video games to the Cyberspace Administration of China’s “minor mode” rolled out on mobile devices last year, policymakers have taken decisive, forward-thinking steps. Yet new global research suggests that Chinese families themselves remain divided on whether outright bans are the next step forward. Preliminary findings from Family First, a Varkey Foundation initiative, reveal that while 64 per cent of Chinese parents support a social media ban for under-16s, only 50 per cent of their children agree, a 14-point generational gap. The data comes from the world’s first global intergenerational study on under-16 social media bans, conducted across 15 countries, surveying children, parents, grandparents and Gen Z respondents. China’s figures sit in the middle of a striking global spectrum. Parental support is far higher in Malaysia (77 per cent), India (75 per cent) and France (74 per cent), and markedly lower in Japan (38 per cent) and Nigeria (39 per cent). Among children, China’s 50 per cent supporting a ban ranks third globally, well above the 37 per cent global average, yet the gap with parents persists. Perhaps most revealing is the Gen Z perspective. In China, 50 per cent of Gen Z respondents back a ban, virtually mirroring the global average of 51 per cent. That the first generation raised on social media is this ambivalent about its own digital habitat ought to give us all pause. As a researcher in education and a parent, I see these numbers as a call for dialogue. China’s existing regulatory architecture, from content classification rules and device-level controls to screen-time limits, has laid important groundwork that few nations can match. The opportunity now is to complement those protections with the conversations that need to happen within families and classrooms. The generational divide this research exposes is fundamentally a communication gap. Parents perceive risk; children perceive autonomy and connection. Bridging that divide requires building on existing safeguards with sustained digital literacy education that equips young people to navigate online spaces critically and responsibly. Chinese educators, parents and policymakers should pay close attention. The strongest digital protections are those shaped by an understanding of family dynamics, with policy and dialogue working hand in hand. Marina Watt, doctoral student in education, University of Bristol Leadership change is not all it’s made out to be I am amazed by how people think that individual leadership changes can solve big fundamental problems. In football, big English clubs have been repeatedly firing their head coaches when players underperform or when conflicts arise. For instance, in recent years, we have seen Manchester United replace Erik ten Hag with Ruben Amorim, Tottenham Hotspur getting Thomas Frank after dismissing Ange Postecoglou, and Chelsea getting Liam Rosenior to replace Enzo Maresca. All of them ran into problems and were sacked or resigned. In Washington, or Mar-a-Lago, US President Donald Trump thought that bringing regime change to Venezuela and Iran would make America great again. He ended up smashing decades of established international order, taking the world’s geopolitics and economy into a new era of uncertainty. Interestingly, even though supporters of the Democrats disagree with Trump on many areas, they seem to agree that a change in leadership will solve problems, pinning their hopes on the midterm elections this November and on the next presidential elections in 2028. I do not think regime change can have much of a positive impact if political leaders and policymakers are more interested in politicking than undertaking deep and meaningful reforms. The United States had Joe Biden as president for four years from 2021 to 2025, and eight years of leadership under Barack Obama from 2009 to 2017. How much did they do for the country? Four years of Biden’s leadership were marred by an influx of illegal immigrants, inflation ticking up, and homelessness in major cities like San Francisco. There continued to be gun violence and school shootings, as well as the proliferation of illegal drugs, fuelling grievances and the rise of a strongman like Trump. If the Democrats return to power in 2028, the US may cease to be an aggressor of foreign countries. But could the Democrats avoid their past failures? Do they have what it takes to make the US truly great again, as a safe, welcoming and attractive destination for investors, immigrants and travellers from around the world? Party politics are failing voters and ordinary people, not only in countries like the US, but also in Japan, the United Kingdom, France and South Korea. Those committed to national prosperity and global stability should think deeper than leadership change. Tony Cheung, Kennedy Town

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Readers discuss the next vital steps in China’s move to regulate children’s digital lives, and our unrealistic expectations about leadership change

Readers discuss the next vital steps in China’s move to regulate children’s digital lives, and our unrealistic expectations about leadership change