Teen Speakers Accuse UK Charity of Censoring Social Media Warnings
An internet safety campaign supported by major US technology companies has faced serious allegations of censoring two teenage speakers who were invited to highlight the most pressing dangers facing children online. The controversy centres on Childnet, a British charity that receives partial funding from corporations including Snap, Roblox, and Meta.
Edited Speeches and Omitted Warnings
According to documented edits obtained by the Guardian, Childnet removed significant portions of speeches prepared by Lewis Swire, then 17 from Edinburgh, and Saamya Ghai, then 14 from Buckinghamshire. The teenagers had been selected to address an audience comprising government officials, charity representatives, and tech company delegates at the 2024 Safer Internet Day event in London.
The excised content included stark warnings describing social media addiction as "one of the worst psychological addictions in history" and an "imminent threat to our future." Additional deletions referenced children feeling powerless to disengage from platforms like TikTok and Snapchat, with social media blamed for worsening what was termed a "devastating epidemic" of isolation. A passage questioning why individuals would choose to spend years "scrolling TikTok and binge-watching Netflix" was also removed from the final presentations.
Charity Denies Funding Influence
Childnet, which organises the annual Safer Internet Day initiative with over 2,800 educational institutions listed as supporters this year, has firmly denied making edits to appease its corporate backers. The charity's core mission is officially stated as "helping to make the internet a great and safe place for children."
Will Gardner, Childnet's chief executive, refuted claims that editorial changes were motivated by financial relationships. "We would certainly advise and edit around tone and language but we wouldn't stop young people making a point," Gardner stated, attributing modifications to event constraints and timing rather than donor influence.
Teenage Speakers Feel Betrayed
Lewis Swire expressed feeling "censored" by the charity's handling of their contributions. He discovered some cuts only upon receiving a final paper copy shortly before taking the stage. One eliminated line poignantly warned: "Young people are begging for a rope to pull them from the quicksand." Another removed comparison stated: "Social media companies are in bed with the very same psychology used to exploit gambling victims." Upon learning of this deletion, Swire hastily reinstated a similar statement in his speech.
"I felt like we were being censored and almost betrayed by this organisation which we wanted to represent with integrity," Swire revealed. "It was a pretty difficult experience." At the time, he served on Childnet's youth advisory board without full awareness of potential funding conflicts.
Saamya Ghai, now 16, described the editing as "quite shocking" and "hypocritical," noting that the removed content highlighted crucial industry issues the charity had asked them to address.
Broader Criticism and Campaign Responses
Daisy Greenwell, co-founder of the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, argued that teenagers "should not be asked to censor themselves to protect the commercial interests of Big Tech." She criticised the practice of filtering young voices to align with organisational positions, stating this constitutes "cover" rather than genuine participation.
Harry Amies, co-founder of Unplug.Scot, expressed that evidence presented by Swire left parents "speechless," predicting widespread shock upon learning that Safer Internet Day receives funding from platforms like Snapchat.
Additional Content Removed from Speeches
Further edits included Swire's account of a schoolfriend who felt "terrible" about spending 40 hours weekly on social media but felt unable to quit due to financial incentives and social commitments. Another omitted section cited research linking excessive social media use with exacerbating loneliness epidemics.
Now 19, Swire campaigns for social media bans for under-16s, while the edited speeches controversy raises significant questions about youth advocacy and corporate influence in online safety initiatives.
