Privacy Notice: Student names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy.

Students Discuss Blaming Someone

Prefer to listen to the chat? Click play below!

Audio narration is AI-generated from the text transcript and does not represent the students' actual voices.

0:00

Guide February 17, 2026, 5:39 PM

👋 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" 🤓

Lillian February 22, 2026, 10:33 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:40 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:47 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:47 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:47 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:52 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:52 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:56 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 10:56 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:01 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:01 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:07 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:07 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:14 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:20 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:24 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:27 PM

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 February 22, 2026, 11:30 PM

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

Understanding Quiz

Zoe

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

Lillian

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

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

Justification

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.

Survey results

Opinion Changes

Students rated the following statement: 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

Zoe

-2

Lillian

Pre-chat opinion

Post-chat opinion

Moved toward agreement

Moved toward disagreement

Partner Ratings

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Guide's contributions improved the discussion	—	—	—	Zoe	—
Guide treated me and my partner with equal respect	—	—	—	—	Lillian
I felt comfortable sharing my honest opinions with my partner	—	—	—	Zoe	—
I was not offended by my partner's perspective	—	—	—	—	Lillian
My partner was respectful	—	—	—	—	Lillian
My partner was genuinely trying to understand my perspective	—	—	—	Zoe	—
It was valuable to chat with a student who did NOT share my perspective	—	—	—	—	Lillian
It would be good if more students and classes used Sway	—	—	—	Zoe	—
This discussion led me to change my mind about something related to the topic	—	—	—	Lillian	—
Sway helped me articulate my thoughts/feelings better	—	—	—	Zoe	—
The skills I practiced in this chat will be useful in my conversations outside of Sway	—	—	—	Zoe	Lillian

Word Counts

AI Guide

259 words

4 messages

Student

Lillian

654 words · 7 messages

Student

Zoe

499 words · 5 messages