There is a gap between what you hear about and what you really need to know. We’re here to fill it. Welcome to The Disconnect – our newest publication showcasing public interest stories relating to internet freedom, privacy, AI, tech law, biometrics, surveillance, malware and data breaches, kept simple and delivered straight to your inbox as part of your regular Talk Liberation subscription. This news is too important to paywall – so we have kept it free for all. Please support us by subscribing, sharing and spreading the word!
 |
Talk Liberation is committed to providing equal access for individuals with disabilities. To view an accessible version of this article, click here.
Do you feel comfortable with Google knowing how old your child is and when their birthday is? Do you feel comfortable with Google monitoring your child’s age and then engaging in targeted outreach to them based upon that information?
Do you feel comfortable with Google advising your child that they can increase their autonomy from you – and your rules – based upon their age information?
This incredible encroachment into the relationships between parents and children by a tech giant is a real world case study that is happening now.
A major controversy has erupted after it was revealed that Google directly emailed children as young as 12 (and their parents,) to encourage them to learn how to disable parental safety controls upon the child’s impending 13th birthday. There has been strong backlash, with one mother accusing the trillion-dollar corporation of “grooming minors for profit.” Part of Google’s “Family Link” supervised accounts system automatically notifies users of their upcoming “graduation” from parental oversight, framing it as a coming-of-age milestone. This direct corporate-to-child communication, which occurred without requiring parental consent for the communication, or the change, has sparked parental outrage for undermining their authority and prioritizing digital engagement over child safety. It’s also sparked concern for privacy, as the backlash may encourage more control for all.
 |
A ‘Predatory’ Practice of Corporate Overreach
The viral headlines were spearheaded by Melissa McKay, president of the Digital Childhood Institute, who publicly shared the email her son received. In a scathing LinkedIn post, McKay condemned Google for “asserting authority over a boundary that does not belong to them.” She argued the messaging strategically reframes parents as “a temporary inconvenience to be outgrown” and positions corporate platforms as the default replacement for familial guidance. “Call it what it is. Grooming for engagement. Grooming for data. Grooming minors for profit,” McKay wrote, labelling it among the most predatory corporate practices she has witnessed in a decade of advocacy. Her post flayed the flames of concern from other parents and safety groups, who echoed alarms about the erosion of parental autonomy.
Google’s Exploitations, Parental Control and Privacy Concerns,
Following the online anger, Google issued a statement via a spokesperson for the company saying, “Building on our commitment to family safety, we’re making a planned update to require formal parental approval for teens to leave a supervised account. These changes better ensure protections stay in place until both the parent and teen feel ready for the next step. This builds on our existing practice of emailing both the parent and child before the change to facilitate family conversations about the account transition.” Previously, while parents also received a notification, children could unilaterally opt out of all restrictions—including content filters, screen time limits, and location tracking—upon confirming they were 13. This age threshold is tied to data consent laws in regions like the U.S. and U.K., though some note it is arbitrary from a developmental standpoint. Google’s Family Link, touted as an “easy-to-use tool” for managing a child’s digital activity, effectively sunsets by default when a user reaches their country’s age of digital consent, which can be as young as 13.
This incident has intensified ongoing debates about children’s data rights and corporate responsibility. Rani Govender of the UK’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children emphasized that leaving such decisions solely to children “can put them in harm’s way,” noting development varies and families should decide together. Politically, the controversy increased calls for stricter regulations. In the UK, Liberal Democrats have advocated raising the data processing age of consent from 13 to 16, while the Conservatives propose an outright social media ban for under-16s. Meanwhile, regulators like Ofcom have warned tech firms they must take a “safety-first approach,” hinting at potential enforcement actions for non-compliance with new online safety duties. The extremities however also make it difficult for those concerned about this also being a gateway toward privacy erosions and increases in surveillance measures for all people. Let’s not forget that the age verification on many websites, like their desire to use facial scanning tech or ban people from access unless they release their entire identities, puts digital privacy at risk.
A fundamental tension between corporate data ecosystems and family upbringing’s been unveiled. While Google’s policy adjustment rapidly acknowledged the issue, their solution is temporary and the core concern remains: automated systems are making profound interventions in parent-child relationships, and further in the relationships between individuals, corporate big tech, and the government. The framing of parental supervision as something to “graduate” from reveals a commercial mindset at odds with nuanced, real-world child development. But the desire to ban or protect may also lead to diminished rights for all people. As the digital landscape evolves, there’s an urgent need for a transparent, ethical internet etiquette that genuinely empowers families, rather than divides them, as they navigate children’s online journeys, while also protecting the rights of all users.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This edition of The Disconnect was written by REAL HUMANS with no AI involved in any part of the production of this article. All the more reason to please support us :). If you love what we’re doing, please consider contributing $5 per month so that we can continue providing you with this vital, unique digest.
Remember to SUBSCRIBE and spread the word about this unique news service.
This News Report was produced by the Talk Liberation Digital Media Team, and is brought to you by Panquake.com – We Don’t Hope, We Build!
© Talk Liberation Limited. The original content of this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Please attribute copies of this work to “Talk Liberation” or Talkliberation.com. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact licensing@talkliberation.com.