Reaction to General Comment 25 on Children's Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment

Today the Committee on the Rights of the Child has published its 25th General Comment, on 'Children's Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment'. This much anticipated General Comment provides guidance on how the digital environment and children’s rights interact with each other, and how best to respect, protect and fulfil children's rights in the digital environment. As my research focuses on the child’s right to play, I have eagerly awaited publication of this General Comment.

The issue of the digital environment and play is controversial, with people often siding with one of two contrasting viewpoints. On one side of the debate, the digital environment is viewed as hugely detrimental to children’s play with insurmountable risks relating to potential harms such as exposure to unsafe content (e.g. sexual content or content that is damaging to children’s mental health), connection with people who want to cause them harm, and having life-limiting effects on their physical and cognitive health through, for example, fostering a sedentary lifestyle and limiting options for active outdoor play and impeding the development of their imagination. On the other side of the debate, the digital environment provides opportunities for a specific form of play – digital play, which can allow children to play and interact with people from across the globe, and is critical for realising the right to play for children with disabilities. As I have navigated the literature on both sides of the debates, I have become acutely aware of the sensitivity and understanding that is required in providing guidance on the implementation of the child’s right to play whilst seeking to put the child’s best interests first. The way in which the Committee has reflected the child’s right to play and children’s engagement with the digital environment in General Comment 25 is therefore of great significance to the debates surrounding the child’s right to play and children’s use of technology and access to the digital environment.

The opening of General Comment 25 shows that the Committee is acutely aware of the polarising debates on technology, stating that the digital environment ‘affords new opportunities for the realisation of children’s rights, but also poses the risk of their violation and abuse’ (para.3). The Committee highlights, for example, the risks relating to ‘violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities’ and their impact on the child’s right to life and survival (para. 14). It also devotes whole sections to risks pertaining to violence against children and child exploitation (e.g. VII and XII, A). My research shows that this is a significant and ever-present risk that cannot be disregarded. The Committee devotes a whole section to the issue of Violence against Children which discusses in greater detail the potential harm that may come to children through their engagement with the digital environment, and it highlights the need for states to ensure the implementation of ‘safety and protective measures in accordance with children’s evolving capacities’ (para.82).

On the matter of children’s health and their use of the digital environment, the Committee focuses heavily on the value of the digital environment in supporting children’s access to health information. It fails to adequately highlight the potential risks of excessive use of technology for children’s physical health, although it does note that play can involve physical activity (para. 109). Whilst it does devote time to highlighting the risk of overexposure to advertisement and marketing of unhealthy products and consumables (para.97), the Committee simply nods to the need to balance the use of technology ‘with their need for rest, exercise and direct interaction with their peers, families and communities’ (para.98). The Committee could have taken this opportunity to draw a connection between children’s health and children’s play more clearly by stating that that their use of technology must also be balanced with their need for outdoor and active play. In its section on health, the Committee advises states to ‘develop guidance for children, parents, caregivers and educators regarding the importance of a health balance of digital and non-digital activities and sufficient rest’ yet fails to provide adequate advice itself on what such guidance should include. The Committee does return to this issue, in part, in its section on leisure, education and play, but the separation of these issues weakens the protection of children’s play and understanding of the interdependence of children’s rights. This is an ongoing challenge posed by the structure of the General Comments.

The Committee must, however, be commended for underlining the role of the digital environment in promoting children’s play and the criticality of play for children’s wellbeing and development (para.106). The Committee highlights children’s concern with the lack of understanding of the importance of digital play, and in particular for peer play (para.106), and provides some evidence to support the value of the digital environment for children’s play. It states, for example, that the digital environment ‘can facilitate children’s social skills, learning, expression, creative activities, such as music and art, and sense of belonging and a shared culture’ (para. 107). Whilst the Committee does again underscore risks relating to children’s use of the digital environment (para.110), it also provides valuable advice relating to the implementation of the right to play and the digital environment. The Committee states that digital technology intended for children should be ‘distributed and used in ways that enhance children’s opportunities for culture, recreation and play’ (para. 108). The Committee encourages ‘innovation in digital play… that support children’s autonomy, personal development and enjoyment’ (para.108). This is welcome advice as it highlights the potential for digital play to have a positive impact on children and the value in supporting positive digital play innovation.

A critical point raised by the Committee, and one that I underscore strongly in my research, is the need for attractive opportunities for physical and active play in and around the areas where children live, and the promotion of these opportunities (para.109). The Committee rightly highlight the involvement and need for physical movement in young children’s play and can be commended on highlighting the role of physical activity in older children’s play (para. 109). The latter is a significant improvement on the Committee’s existing guidance relating to older children’s play which has tended to focus instead on older children’s socialisation or leisure, and less on older children’s play. Nevertheless, the Committee fails to adequately draw the connection between children’s digital play and the limiting effect it can have on children’s outdoor physical play. This should have been emphasised much more as it is a considerable issue regarding the relationship between children’s rights and the digital environment (including the right to health). The Committee’s choice of language is critical. In choosing to express that states should ensure attractive physical alternatives to digital play rather than must, it undermines the importance of outdoor active play opportunities for the realisation of the right to play, and the rights to health and development.

Another noteworthy exclusion from the General Comment is its failure to explore the role of the digital environment in supporting the play of children with disabilities. Whilst the Committee does regard the digital environment as opening ‘new avenues for children with disabilities to engage in social relationships with their peers’ (para. 89), it does not frame this in terms of play which undermines the importance of measures to support the right to play for disabled children.

I want to bring this article to a close by highlighting some aspects of the Committee’s guidance in General Comment 25 that relate to measures that must be taken to support children’s right to play in the digital environment. Management of the digital environment must be done with the child’s best interests as a primary consideration (para. 12). The considerable risks relating to the digital environment make this a critical issue. Children must be supported to access the digital environment in a safe way. They must be given support and guidance on how to be mindful of the risks relating to the digital environment, and this should be in line with their evolving capacities. The content that children are given access to must be age appropriate. Such a principle reflects both the best interests principle and the evolving capacities of the child – the latter must require ensuring that children are not exposed to content that does not match their current capacity and maturity. Respect of the child’s right to be heard (Article 12) must not result in ‘undue monitoring’ of children’s use of technology and the digital environment (para. 18). Similarly, guidance on appropriate use of the digital environment must include advice relating to the length of time given to digital play in favour of physical, and ideally outdoor, play. Children’s digital play should be supported in a way that encourages their autonomy, personal development and enjoyment (para.108). Parents and guardians in particular, due to their role and impact on children’s everyday life, should be given guidance on the importance of children’s play, how to support children’s digital play in a safe and balanced way, and how to respond to and protect children from potential harms in the digital environment. The Committee should do more to support states in providing such guidance to parents.

The Covid-19 pandemic has put the issue of technology to the forefront of discussion. We have seen the importance of access to technology for children’s education, communication and connection with their friends and family, and for some, their play. We have also become acutely aware of the disproportionate impact that lockdown measures have had on the children who have not had access to technology, due to poverty or lack of infrastructure. The Committee highlights the need to ensure that measures are taken to promote digital inclusion in order to prevent the intensification of existing inequalities and the presentation of new inequalities (para. 4). These inequalities relate not only to the right to education (paras. 99-105), as has been the focus of much discussion during the pandemic, but also relate to the child’s right to play.