Long-term Trust in Child-Facing Tech

Mattel’s plan to embed generative AI into toys like Barbie and Thomas The Tank Engine signals just how rapidly artificial intelligence is entering all children’s lives. As technology becomes embedded in infancy, we need to ask: Who designs the systems? Who sets the limits? Who protects the child? In my latest piece for The Australian, I explore how children’s tech policy has become a defining test of national character — and how Australia can lead the way in protecting digital childhoods with integrity, care, and courage. Australia doesn’t start from scratch. Many of our companies already embed robust governance, risk and accountability frameworks that prioritise long-term trust. Now, we must extend these strengths to the design, deployment and oversight of AI — especially when it touches the lives of children. As Chair of the Centre for Digital Wellbeing, I believe the voices of parents, educators, health professionals and children themselves must be at the centre of AI governance — not just corporate or political interests. 📖 Read the article here: 👉 https://lnkd.in/gNDn6wZG #DigitalRights #AIethics #ChildSafetyOnline #TechPolicy #TrustworthyAI #DigitalWellbeing #justbecausewecandoesntmeanweshould

If your EdTech startup gets hacked today... Will parents still trust you tomorrow? This is what I asked an EdTech founder last month when he told me I have 1M students every week on my EdTech platform It’s just an online class platform. Why would anyone hack us? 6 weeks later, their entire system was shut down. Thousands of student records leaked. Parents angry. Trust broken. Business… on pause. Here’s what no one tells you about running an EdTech company: You’re not just building a learning platform. You’re handling the future of children. And that comes with a huge responsibility. Here’s the truth: → Students’ personal info → Parents’ payment data → Exam results, learning history, behavioral patterns All of this is a goldmine for hackers. And EdTech startups are easy targets because most of them: → Don’t have full-time security teams → Use third-party tools without audits → Assume “nothing will happen to us” Until it does. I had to tell this real business case to him In 2024, an Indian EdTech app with over 1.2 million users was breached. Hackers got access to names, emails, phone numbers, and even login credentials. Parents panicked. Many withdrew their kids. The brand never fully recovered. Because in EdTech- trust is everything. And once it’s broken, it's almost impossible to fix. What do parents really want? → Safe platforms → Protected student data → Confidence that their child’s future won’t be exploited Cyber protection isn’t a tech issue. It’s a trust issue. Here’s what solid cyber security plans can do for EdTech companies: ✅ Encrypt & protect student data ✅ Stop ransomware & phishing attacks ✅ Build parent confidence ✅ Meet global privacy regulations (DPDP,GDPR, IT Act, etc.) ✅ Get listed with govt. EdTech directories & compliance boards ✅ Qualify for grants & incentives from MeitY, Digital India, and Startup India When you invest in cyber protection: → You protect your business. → You gain long-term parent trust. → You stay 10 steps ahead of regulators and competitors. EdTech is booming. But growth without protection is a trap. Let’s fix this before it breaks. Hi, I'm Krishan Pal (PMP) help EdTech founders set up affordable cyber security frameworks that protect their business, their students, and their peace of mind. → Simple tools → Smart systems → Govt-compliant policies → Training for your team You don’t need to be an IT expert. You just need to act before it’s too late. Curious how to start? Drop a “SECURE” in the comments or DM me. I’ll send you a free checklist of what your EdTech company must secure in 2025. Let’s keep learning safe. 🛡️ ♻️ Repost in your network to share with an EdTech founder or even Coaching institutions who've no cyber awareness/ protection 🔔 Follow Krishan Pal (PMP)for more such tips to protect your digital empires #EdTech #CyberSecurity #FounderTips #StartupIndia #DataProtection #StudentSafety #ParentTrust #CyberInsurance

As a parent and as someone who has spent two decades building and scaling technology, I find myself holding two truths at once: we cannot shield our children from the systems they will grow up navigating, and yet the responsibility for shaping those systems rests entirely on us. The announcement of “Baby Grok,” a child‑oriented version of the Grok chatbot, is a perfect example of where those two truths collide. I don’t see this as a question of whether AI for children is good or bad; I see it as a question of whether we are designing with enough depth to account for the weight of that decision. As Emma Johnson noted in her post yesterday, the conversation isn’t about banning innovation, it’s about whether the architecture we build can hold long-term trust, safety, and parental agency in a space where consent and context aren’t optional, they are the terrain. In my experience advising mid‑market companies and enterprise teams, the most overlooked aspect of AI adoption isn’t the model itself but the architecture around it: governance, context awareness, accountability, and the ability to learn responsibly in real environments. When we extend AI into the space of children’s learning, those questions become magnified. A system that “performs well” technically isn’t enough; it has to hold the complexity of human development and the unpredictable nature of how kids engage with technology. I came across Kirra Pendergast’s piece that also raised a point I deeply resonate with: launching a child-facing AI without visible developmental oversight or safety architecture isn’t just a technical gap, it’s a cultural one. It signals a design culture more focused on shipping and optics than on the long horizon of trust that raising or teaching a child requires. For me, Baby Grok isn’t a headline about a new app. Perhaps it’s a signal about the maturity of our design choices. It asks whether we are willing to move beyond performance metrics and brand positioning into a deeper conversation about resilience, values, and transparency. As parents and as technologists, our challenge isn’t to slow innovation, but to infuse it with the kind of structure and intention that earns the right to teach the next generation. #BabyGrok #ResponsibleAI #AIForKids #ChildSafety #AIParenting #EthicalInnovation #TechGovernance #AIReadiness #RahulBhavsar #AIXccelerate

The recent article by Peter G. Kirchschläger underscores the urgent ethical need to regulate AI, especially as it increasingly intersects with the lives and vulnerabilities of children. The tragic case of Sewell Setzer is a stark reminder that human dignity and safety must be central to AI governance. Another dimension worth highlighting is the ecosystem that allows such harms to thrive. Today’s AI systems often rely on platform designs that reward engagement, not well‑being. Recommender algorithms, feedback loops, and behavioral monetization amplify emotional responses and expose children to manipulative or harmful content. Addressing this requires more than banning extreme outputs; it demands a rethink of business models. Efforts already underway, such as the EU’s AI Act and OECD principles, show that regional or hybrid governance can offer enforceable solutions. These can coexist with global frameworks and provide early safeguards. At the same time, tools like red‑teaming, audits, and safety evaluations developed by labs and firms should be acknowledged as part of a larger accountability ecosystem. Across both developed and developing regions, youth mental health remains fragile, yet in under‑resourced areas, where digital literacy is low and support systems are scarce, children are especially vulnerable to the harms of unregulated AI. Without acknowledging these disparities, governance risks reinforcing deeper digital and social inequalities. Additionally, open‑source and decentralized AI tools, which circulate beyond traditional platforms, create new risks. They demand flexible regulatory strategies that consider a wider range of actors. AI must be shaped not by what is profitable or possible, but by what is permissible, according to the values we claim to uphold. While many actors in the AI ecosystem operate with integrity, others may place progress and profit above protection. This is precisely why ethical governance cannot be left to discretion; it must be treated as a shared societal obligation. Because in the end, the true measure of a society is not the sophistication of its tools, but how consistently it chooses to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. #globalaffairs #aiethics #childprotection #techaccountability #digitalgovernance Project Syndicate Peter G. Kirchschlaeger