Student chat

Parents vs. Tech Companies on Addiction

Privacy Notice: Student names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy. The audio is AI-generated narration, not the students’ voices. Emoji reactions are illustrative. Plain transcript.

01Chat transcript

Guide

👋 Welcome, everyone!

Our topic is responsibility for tech addiction. We'll be discussing this statement:

Parents, not tech companies, bear primary responsibility for children's technology addiction.

Zoe agrees with the statement.
Lillian disagrees with the statement.

My name is Guide, and I'm here to support your discussion. If you need anything, start your message with "Hey Guide" 🤓

about a week later

Lillian

Hey! I'll explain a little as to why I disagree. While parents are primarily responsible for their children while they are minors, I believe that tech companie purposefully make their products to be addictive in order to maximize profit. So if their product is addictive, they bear the primary responsibility for children's (who are impressionable minds) addictions

Zoe

Hi! I went back and forth on this question, especially after watching that documentary on social media, but the reason I agreed was that, while kids are minors, I think it is the parents' responsibility to watch over how their child uses social media. i agree that the tech companies make their products addictive and that why i think the parents need to step in before children can gain access to it.

Lillian

I do agree that parents have the primary responsibility to supervise theor children. Parents should absolutely teach health habits and set limits. My stance on this is that parental responsibility does not equal primary responsibility.

Lillian

The issue, as I see it, is power and design. Tech companies like youtube and tiktok, and instagram intentionally design their platforms with infinate scrolling, autoplay, personalized algorithoms, push notifications are behavioral psychology used to keep users hooked, and avialible to minors. These companies pay no mind to minors when creating these features.

Guide

Lillian, you argue that tech companies bear primary responsibility because they intentionally design addictive features. But doesn't your argument prove too much?

By your logic, wouldn't candy manufacturers bear primary responsibility for childhood obesity because they intentionally make candy taste good? Or toy companies for children's materialism because they design appealing products?

You acknowledge parents have responsibility to supervise and set limits. If parents can prevent or mitigate technology addiction through supervision and limit-setting, why doesn't that make them primarily responsible when addiction occurs in their absence?

Lillian

Parents are individual caregivers. Tech companies are billiion-dolar corporations with teams of engineers designing systems specifically to over-ride control. this creates imbalance. technoogy platforms are different from candy or toys. Candy is designed to taste good.

Lillian

Social media platforms use algorithms to adapt to users in real time with the intent on getting them hooked. thats not making it appealing, its getting them intentionally hooked. parents can try to mitigate harm, but mitigation doesnt equal primary causation. if a company knowingly builds an addictive product to release it to children, the greater responsibility lies with the designers of the design, not the gatekeepers trying to manage it

Zoe

That's a really good point you make, and i agree with the fact that these companies are making their product addictive on purpose. I do think tho that it is a big responsibility for the parent to oversee what their child has access to.

Zoe

In 2026 i dont think there is an excuse for a parent to not have some knowledge on how harmful social media can be. i can see when we were growing up that it was newer and more unknown, but as of right now i think it is the parents' responsibility to monitor what their children are doing with technology.

Lillian

I agree, social media and it s possibility of causing harm is widely known. I also think that in 2026, social media is deeply integrated into the norms of society. What is a parent's priority, saving their kid from the potential of a screen addiction, or cutting them off of a main type of socialization. In my perspective, even if parent's oversee and set limits for screen time, addictions form anyways. The alternative would be not allowing children any at all. To this point, lets also talk about how integrated technology is in the education system, with chromebooks and online schooling systems like schoology. Children will inevitably have access to the internet, and social media, in their developing years. Their is only so much a parent can do to this extent

Guide

Zoe, Lillian just raised an interesting challenge to your view: even vigilant parents face a dilemma between protecting kids from addiction and allowing normal social participation.

If social media is now essential for peer connection and schools require technology access, can parents realistically prevent exposure? And if they can't prevent exposure to these intentionally addictive platforms, how can they bear primary responsibility for resulting addictions?

👍

Zoe

I didnt think about that, good point! Technology plays a huge role in schools with online learning and the use of ipads and cromebooks. I have liked to see more and more schools banning phones because i think that will help a lot with social media addiction, but for as after school and on the weekends i still think that parents play a major role in the exposure.❤️

Zoe

It is unrealistic to not let a teen use social media because like you said it is so intergrated in our everyday lives but i do believe that parents can limit access, with screentime monoriting and also how long they have access to social media in a day. It might not stop addiction but it could slow it down.

Lillian

True, it could slow it down! Though, does that make it the parent's primary responsibility to organize and oversee a system that is already in place and intentionally adapted for user engagement? I could see that partially being the parent's responsibility, but not primarily. Its soothing a problem already put in place. I guess my biggest stance is the fact that the addiction itself comes from social media and the tech companies that design it specifically for that purpose. Parent's responsibilities are to protect their children, but tech companies make that extremely difficult with their product designs. Lastly, while it would slow it down if parents are more vigilant, I still believe addiction would occur. That, to me, indicates that parent's responsibilities are shielding their kids from potential dangers, and tech companies present (and are the origin) of that danger

Zoe

Great point. With that being said do you think there should be more restrictions on social media? It makes me think about vapes and nicotine products used to be 18+ but then they quickly saw how addictive they were and how kids were gaining access to them so then it was switched to 21+. Since these social media companies are purposely making their product so addictive, should there be more regulation regarding them? I think that If it is the tech companies' primary responsibility for addiction, then they should be held accountable and have more restrictions on their products.

Lillian

Yes! that is a great idea. It goes to show that if they put that content out there, it should be age appropriate. Age restrictions is a great way to do that. This would also give parents the appropriate guidelines as to what and what not to expose their kids to. Similar to how movies have age ratings. This would also work to shift the responsibilites to the individual user, and in a minor's case, that would be the parent.

Lillian

Then, just like medical consents (and addictions fall into the mental health category) parents would be responsible for what their children can be exposed to. Especially since predatory people can be on social media, which is dangerous for impressionable mibds

Zoe

I agree. So, going back to the original question i would have to agree with you that in this present moment, tech companies have that primary responsibility for addiction. If these restrictions were put in place then it would be a parents responsibility. Also I know that technology is so present in everyones lives nowadays but there was a time when it wasnt so it may seem like it could be harmful to restrict kids from social media but there was a time it didnt exist and kids were still able to connect with each other

02Understanding quiz

Sway asks each student five questions about what their partner argued. Scores are accurate. Questions and responses may be updated from time to time to reflect improvements to Sway.

Lilliandisagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Zoe argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, why did Zoe place primary responsibility on parents even though she accepted your claim about addictive design?

She believed age restrictions already tell parents which platforms are appropriate for minors.
She believed parents should control access before children can become dependent on the platforms.
She believed school phone bans give parents complete control over children's technology use.
She believed parents understand behavioral algorithms better than technology companies do.

correct Justification

Zoe explicitly accepted that companies "make their products addictive" but concluded that "the parents need to step in before children can gain access to it." School bans and age restrictions were discussed later, not as the basis of her initial position.

When you argued that technology is unavoidable in education and social life, how did Zoe defend a continuing major role for parents?

She argued that parents could rely on phone bans because most exposure happened during the school day.
She argued that parents could teach children how algorithms work, eliminating the platforms' addictive effects.
She argued that parents could limit after-school access and screen time, reducing addiction even if they could not prevent it.
She argued that parents could remove all internet-enabled devices while schools provided safer alternatives.

correct Justification

Zoe acknowledged that total exclusion was "unrealistic," but said parents still had a major role "after school and on the weekends" through "screentime monitoring" and daily limits. She added, "It might not stop addiction but it could slow it down."

After you described the conflict between protection, social participation, and school technology, what assumption did Guide ask Zoe to reconsider?

Whether parents can be primarily responsible if normal life makes exposure to addictive platforms difficult to prevent.
Whether children can be primarily responsible if they understand that social media may be harmful.
Whether regulators can be primarily responsible if age limits resemble ratings used for movies.
Whether schools can be primarily responsible if they provide Chromebooks but ban personal phones.

correct Justification

Guide asked, "If social media is now essential for peer connection and schools require technology access, can parents realistically prevent exposure?" Guide then connected that problem directly to whether parents could bear "primary responsibility for resulting addictions."

When Zoe compared social media with restrictions on nicotine products, what reasoning led her toward greater regulation?

Because both products are socially necessary, restrictions would help users balance access with participation.
Because both products have familiar risks, parents should bear responsibility without additional rules for producers.
Because both products are intentionally addictive and reach children, stronger restrictions would hold their producers accountable.
Because both products are used in schools, institutions should decide how long minors may access them.

correct Justification

Zoe noted that nicotine rules changed after authorities saw "how addictive they were and how kids were gaining access." She then reasoned that because social media companies purposely make products addictive, they "should be held accountable and have more restrictions on their products."

By the end of the discussion, how had Zoe revised her answer to the original question?

She concluded that schools currently bear primary responsibility, while parents should take over when children are at home.
She concluded that users currently bear primary responsibility, while age ratings would shift responsibility toward schools.
She concluded that parents currently bear primary responsibility, but stronger algorithms would shift responsibility toward companies.
She concluded that companies currently bear primary responsibility, but effective restrictions would shift responsibility toward parents.

not quite Justification

Zoe said, "in this present moment, tech companies have that primary responsibility for addiction." She made the revision conditional by adding, "If these restrictions were put in place then it would be a parents responsibility."

4 of 5 correct Next

Zoeagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Lillian argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, how did Lillian distinguish parents' duty to supervise from primary responsibility for addiction?

Parents should monitor access outside school, while schools bear primary responsibility because phone use and online learning begin there.
Parents should set limits because social media is harmful, while children bear primary responsibility once they understand those known risks.
Parents should supervise because minors lack judgment, while schools bear primary responsibility because they require children to use technology.
Parents should supervise and protect their children, while tech companies bear primary responsibility because they intentionally create the addictive danger.

not quite Justification

Lillian said that "parental responsibility does not equal primary responsibility." She argued that parents should supervise and set limits, but that tech companies intentionally use features "to keep users hooked," making the designers the origin of the danger.

When Guide compared social media platforms with candy and toy companies, why did Lillian reject the comparison?

Social media is required for education and socialization, rather than being an optional product like candy or toys.
Social media algorithms adapt to each user in real time to encourage addiction, rather than merely making a product appealing.
Social media is more widely advertised to minors, rather than being purchased directly by parents like candy or toys.
Social media causes mental health effects, rather than creating physical health or materialistic concerns like other products.

correct Justification

Lillian distinguished ordinary appeal from adaptive addictive design: "Candy is designed to taste good," whereas social media algorithms "adapt to users in real time with the intent on getting them hooked."

After you argued that parents in 2026 should understand social media's risks, how did Lillian explain the limits of parental control?

Parents face social and educational pressure to allow technology, so exposure is difficult to prevent and limits may not stop addiction.
Parents can remove social media without social costs, but educational platforms still expose children to addictive algorithms during school.
Parents lack reliable information about platform risks, so they cannot know which limits or monitoring systems would be effective.
Parents depend on schools to ban phones, so they cannot control children's exposure during online classes or after-school activities.

correct Justification

Lillian argued that social media is "deeply integrated into the norms of society" and technology into education through Chromebooks and systems like Schoology. She also said that even when parents "oversee and set limits for screen time, addictions form anyways."

Toward the end, how did Lillian think effective age restrictions would change the allocation of responsibility?

They would give parents clear exposure guidelines and shift responsibility toward the user, meaning the parent when the user is a minor.
They would shift primary responsibility to schools because educators would decide which restricted platforms minors need for academic work.
They would divide responsibility equally because companies would set age ratings while parents would monitor daily screen time.
They would keep primary responsibility with companies because platforms would still use addictive designs within each permitted age group.

correct Justification

Lillian said age restrictions would provide parents with "appropriate guidelines" and "shift the responsibilites to the individual user, and in a minor's case, that would be the parent." This was a hypothetical shift from her view of responsibility under current conditions.

When Guide responded to your claim that parents should monitor children's technology use, what assumption in your reasoning did Guide challenge?

Guide challenged the assumption that social media companies deliberately use personalized features to increase children's engagement.
Guide challenged the assumption that age restrictions would be enforceable enough to make parents responsible for every resulting addiction.
Guide challenged the assumption that parents can bear primary responsibility when social participation and school technology make exposure difficult to avoid.
Guide challenged the assumption that schools have already reduced exposure enough for parents to control all remaining social media use.

correct Justification

Guide emphasized Lillian's dilemma between "protecting kids from addiction and allowing normal social participation" and asked whether parents can realistically prevent exposure when schools require technology. The challenge targeted the inference from a duty to monitor to primary responsibility.

4 of 5 correct Next

03Post-chat survey

Last, both students rate the statement again and then rate a randomly sampled subset of our post-chat survey items. Like their transcripts, individual student opinions are never revealed to instructors.

Lilliandisagrees

Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.

Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.

Parents, not tech companies, bear primary responsibility for children's technology addiction.

Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	No idea	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Guide treated me and my partner with equal respect
I was not offended by my partner's perspective
My partner was respectful
It was valuable to chat with a student who did NOT share my perspective
This discussion led me to change my mind about something related to the topic
The skills I practiced in this chat will be useful in my conversations outside of Sway

Submit

Zoeagrees

Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.

Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.

Parents, not tech companies, bear primary responsibility for children's technology addiction.

Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	No idea	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Guide's contributions improved the discussion
I felt comfortable sharing my honest opinions with my partner
My partner was genuinely trying to understand my perspective
It would be good if more students and classes used Sway
Sway helped me articulate my thoughts/feelings better
The skills I practiced in this chat will be useful in my conversations outside of Sway

Submit

Opinion change

Lilliandisagrees

Zoeagrees

-2

before the chat after the chat

Parents vs. Tech Companies on Addiction

01Chat transcript

02Understanding quiz

03Post-chat survey

Up next

All the chats

The student app

The research