When Algorithms Meet Adolescence: Who Is Responsible for Children's Mental Health Online?

A decade ago, childhood meant cycling through the neighbourhood until sunset, waiting for cartoons to air at a fixed time, or knocking on a friend's door to ask if they could come out and play. Today, childhood begins with a swipe. Before many children learn to ride a bicycle, they know how to scroll, like, and share. Their playground is no longer limited by geography, it is shaped by algorithms.

And that raises an important question: Who is responsible for protecting children's mental health online?

The conversation has gained urgency following a landmark court ruling in New Mexico, where Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, was ordered to pay an additional $567 million to address the impact of its platforms on children's mental health. Along with the financial penalty, the court directed the company to strengthen age verification, improve child safety measures, and make significant changes to how its platforms operate for young users. While Meta has announced that it will appeal the ruling, the case marks a significant shift in how society is beginning to view the responsibility of technology companies.

But this story is much bigger than one company.

Algorithms are often described as neutral pieces of technology. In reality, they are designed to maximise attention. Every pause, click, comment, and replay teaches the system what to show next. For adults, this can simply mean spending more time online. For adolescents, whose brains are still developing, the impact can be far more profound.

Psychologists have long explained that adolescence is a period when the brain becomes especially sensitive to rewards, social approval, and peer acceptance. A notification, a "like," or a viral post can activate the brain's reward pathways, encouraging repeated engagement. Over time, this creates a feedback loop where online validation begins to influence self-worth, emotional regulation, and even identity.

The challenge is that algorithms do not distinguish between content that is engaging and content that is emotionally healthy. If a teenager repeatedly interacts with appearance-focused videos, anxiety-related content, or harmful trends, recommendation systems may simply offer more of the same. What begins as curiosity can gradually become an echo chamber.

This does not mean that social media is inherently harmful. In fact, for many young people, digital platforms provide community, creativity, educational opportunities, and spaces where they feel understood. A teenager living with a chronic illness, a neurodivergent child searching for acceptance, or a young artist sharing their work may find genuine support online that they struggle to find offline.

The problem arises when engagement becomes more important than well-being.

It is easy to point fingers at technology companies, but responsibility does not rest with them alone. Parents often feel overwhelmed because they did not grow up navigating digital childhoods. Teachers are increasingly expected to educate students about online behaviour while already managing academic demands. Governments struggle to create policies that keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. Children, meanwhile, are expected to exercise self-control in digital environments intentionally designed to keep them engaged.

Perhaps this is why the question should not be, Who is to blame? Instead, we should ask, Who has a role to play?

Technology companies have a responsibility to build products that prioritise safety alongside engagement. This includes stronger age verification, transparent recommendation systems, effective reporting tools, and designs that reduce addictive patterns rather than amplify them. Recent legal actions suggest that courts are increasingly expecting platforms to demonstrate this duty of care.

Parents also play a crucial role, not by policing every click, but by creating open conversations. Children who know they can discuss uncomfortable online experiences without fear of punishment are more likely to seek help when they encounter cyberbullying, harmful content, or manipulation.

Schools, too, have an opportunity to expand digital literacy beyond internet safety lessons. Young people need to understand how algorithms influence what they see, how persuasive design works, and why critical thinking is just as important online as it is in the classroom.

Most importantly, children themselves should not carry the burden alone. We often tell them to "spend less time on their phones," yet rarely acknowledge that many digital platforms are intentionally engineered to capture and hold attention. Expecting adolescents to consistently outsmart systems designed by teams of behavioural scientists is neither realistic nor fair.

The future of children's mental health online will not be determined by one lawsuit or one company. It will be shaped by the choices we make as parents, educators, policymakers, researchers, and technology designers. Algorithms are powerful, but they are ultimately human creations. They reflect the priorities we choose to build into them.

If we truly want the next generation to thrive online, perhaps the goal should not be to create algorithms that simply know what children want to watch, but algorithms that also understand what children need to grow.

Written By : R. Sagarikaa, Editorial Head