‘I love it, but I hate it’ – Young people’s experiences and expectations of growing up digital

Executive summary 

This report presents new evidence about the experiences and expectations of the first generation of young people growing up with digital technology in early twenty-first century Britain.  

Their experiences and views are critical: this is a rare moment where radical regulatory change is being considered, with a rising number of countries considering ‘social media bans’ for children. Despite extensive media and policy debates, young people’s own voices and experiences are underheard. 

This research amplifies the voices of 14–24 year olds. Their experience of growing up has been shaped by emerging technologies, online engagement and surveillance, and this research reflects on their experiences of technology evolving from dumbphones to smartphones with internet connectivity, their presence on social media and their exploration of AI. Their relationship with technologies has been significantly marked by living through the COVID-19 pandemic.  

These young people have grown up in an era where online spaces and digital technologies played a large part in their lives, but were significantly under-examined and under-regulated. In July 2025, when the child safety regime under the Online Safety Act came into full effect, the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle apologised to a generation of children for the government’s failure to protect them from ‘toxic’ online content. [ref] Kate Furber, Pauline Harris and Henrietta Hopkins, ‘Born Connected: How Gen Z Navigate Their Digital Lives’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2025) https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DDW-Digital-Lives-Findings-Report_FINAL-.pdf accessed 6 November 2. [/ref] 

The young people represented in this report are – or were – those children. Using peer research methods in partnership with youth work organisations, this research centred 49 young people talking to each other. This cohort shared their experiences and reflections on how technologies have shaped ‘growing up’ today. This is part of a joint programme of work with the Nuffield Foundation examining ‘growing up’ in the UK today, recognising that young people’s digital lives cannot be examined in isolation. 

Peer researchers from Dundee co-designed and facilitated research across four locations, chosen to represent a range of rural, urban and suburban experiences: Dundee, Shetland, Islington and Sandwell. By partnering with youth workers, we were able to hear experiences from people usually excluded from standard qualitative or quantitative research: our sample included young people who experienced different forms of exclusion, including poverty, homelessness or social care, school exclusion, or who had past and current health challenges.  

The peer researchers chose to focus on two topics related to technology and growing up: social media, a group of technologies that they were all familiar with – and felt had shaped their lives in different ways – and AI, which they were less familiar with. While some were excited about the potential of these technologies, most had strong intuitions and insights about their potential harms and the need for controls and protections.  

For both social media and AI, young people reflected on their ethical and social concerns about the impact of emerging technologies on their peers and wider society. The peer researchers chose not to impose strict definitions, but rather wanted the research to enable participants to bring their own experiences of these technologies during their growing up journeys. Discussion topics ranged from platforms such as Reddit or TikTok to messaging apps and search engines, from online applications and schoolwork to how technology is influencing communication and work, and from the impact on creative industries to the influence of technology on exposure to sexualised content.  

Spanning a decade in our sample allowed for discussion of current and reflective experiences. The older end of the sample were at an age where they have developed a sense of moral maturity and could reflect on their own past experiences with more awareness than the younger cohort. Older participants described how their attitudes towards earlier experiences have changed over time and spoke about actively wanting to prevent younger people from having similar experiences.  

Key findings 

Despite a diversity of ages, experiences, backgrounds and attitudes to technology, there were strongly shared views across the cohort.  

Young people told us that: 

• Digital connection is an important route to information and community for young people. While the digital environment can replicate or amplify structural inequalities, for some marginalised young people, it offers comfort and support that is not readily available in their immediate ‘offline’ environment. All young people in this research recounted positive experiences from digital interactions, including accessing advice, relaxation and entertainment, and building community and relationships with peers. 

• At the same time, young people’s accounts starkly highlighted how they had experienced – and continue to experience – harm on online platforms. Their reflections reinforce broader evidence about the extent to which young people are exposed to prolific and inescapable harmful online content including sexual material, graphic violence and technology-mediated sexual assault. Participants shared experiences of receiving sexually explicit images at young ages, having explicit photos of themselves shared among peers and being exposed to videos of abuse in online spaces, and particularly gendered experiences of these. These experiences felt harmful or uncomfortable – not solely because of  ‘bad actors’, illegal content or ill intent, but also because of age-inappropriate interactions,  such as adults asking for mental health support from children. Young people also shared concerns about increased hateful and discriminatory language and behaviours online and how powerless they feel to challenge it. 

• Technologies including smartphones are so integrated into everyday life that young people feel they cannot navigate the world without them. They are frustrated with the inconsistency of being advised by adults to reduce technological dependency, while they are encouraged to participate in a ‘digital first’ society and required to use digital technologies for many essential tasks such as completing schoolwork, applying for paid work or accessing public services. They feel the integration of digital technologies into everyday life limits their ability to control when and how they go online. 

• Platform design choices lead to young people feeling unable to be in control or set boundaries. Young people understand their digital use and experiences as shaped by platform design choices, algorithmic nudges, gamification and ‘dark pattern’ design choices that promote content for commercial or ideological purposes. They see current technology designs as a form of manipulation that prioritises profit over wellbeing and were unequivocal in their call for this to change. 

• They have been left to navigate the online world in isolation, which means they must independently attempt to ensure their own safety online. Young people, and particularly young women and trans participants, consistently reported taking responsibility for their own safety and the safety of younger people including siblings. Their lived experience of an absence of structural accountability for harmful content and negative outcomes has exacerbated their feelings of isolation, and this has important implications for how we understand and conceptualise safeguarding in a digital age. 

• They held little hope of significant positive change in their digital ecosystem. Instead of optimism about the potential for digital platforms to become safer, participants felt resigned to some exposure to negative impacts. They felt that exposure to online harms had become an integral part of growing up that resulted in greater understanding and critical awareness, but that this was accepted at levels that went beyond any offline expectation of exposure to risk. 

• Young people viewed social media and AI as contributing to mental health harms. [ref] This analysis is supported by the findings of recent cases in California and New Mexico against Meta and YouTube where the social media platforms were found to have knowingly integrated harmful features into their platform design. During the trial internal documents were surfaced showing that executives of the respective social media companies were aware of the addictive effects of their design choices. At the time of publication, the companies will still appeal the verdict [/ref] Some young people have developed strategies to deal with harms arising from, for example, unrealistic body standards, inappropriate interactions with older people, and exposure to sexual and graphic content and misinformation; they also use technologies to support their emotional regulation. However, they recounted the emotional impacts of desensitisation, harm, helplessness and frustration arising from this exposure. They attribute specific anxieties to desensitisation to harmful content, and they feel a generalised anxiety about constant digital surveillance. 

• Young people, especially children, do not always recognise when they are being harmed. Exposure to explicit content occurs early in young people’s online journey and participants reflected that they did not always have sufficient maturity to identify harm. While their younger selves accepted seeing distressing content as part of everyday life, they recognised the negative effects of these experiences – as well as the implications in relation to societal norms and the law. This has significant implications for supporting young people to stay safe when using digital technologies, because they may not identify harm at the point of exposure, and therefore may not know how or when to seek support. 

• They are thoughtful and concerned about how AI is shaping the future they are inheriting. Some were optimistic about the potential of AI, others more pessimistic, but they shared deep concerns about the societal harms arising from AI, particularly on the arts, the environment, sex and interpersonal relationships, mental health and jobs.  

• Overall, they have strong and shared views that future youth should not be able to access social media or technology in the way they did. The benefits some young people find in online communities and support networks are countered by exposure to online harms. Profound change is needed to enable people to take control of their relationship with technologies, tackle harms, address corporate power and protect a better future.  

Implications for policy 

Many countries are considering new governance of social media platforms to foster a better relationship between children and technology. The young people in this research endorse the need for this: the digital environment is a large part of young people’s experiences growing up, but too often their experiences are not safe, joyful, informed and supportive of their agency.  

Based on the findings of this research, the Ada Lovelace Institute highlights clear implications for policy debate and measures. 

1. The government must strengthen and enforce age-specific protections for online spaces where children spend time. 

The UK government’s focus on young people as a population that faces unique risks in online spaces is aligned with the concerns of young people in this research. Although the young people in our cohort did not have a consistent view on an appropriate age for limiting access or functionality, they did feel that young people, and particularly younger children, are especially vulnerable to harm and that this vulnerability makes age-specific protections necessary.  

A reactive approach to regulation has enabled significant harms to occur to young people through corporate choices about the design of digital technologies. Young people are unequivocal in their demand for companies to design technologies that promote appropriate experiences. The government therefore needs to introduce regulatory requirements for any online spaces where children spend time, including gaming platforms, chatbots, AI agents, immersive technologies, and EdTech and AI in the classroom.  

Participants supported the principle that some online spaces and features, as currently designed, are inappropriate for children below a certain age limit. Young people’s support for measures which restrict children’s access to harmful online spaces stemmed from reflections on their own experiences of social media platforms as children and concern for their younger peers who are beginning to navigate these environments. 

2. Any restrictions to the use of online spaces must consider the value of online communities for marginalised young people, and be balanced with investment in alternative digital and physical spaces. 

Young people hold complex views on restricting people’s use of digital technologies because, despite the harms they experience, they also benefit from accessing these technologies. Multiple participants explained how access to online spaces helps them find valuable support and build relationships and supportive communities away from their offline lives. 

Similarly, online spaces can provide opportunities for young people to develop their identities and sense of self, which is particularly important for people who may be excluded from, or minoritised in, physical social spaces. Social media platforms have become an important part of this landscape in recent decades. Blanket bans on children using social media platforms may therefore have unequally distributed consequences if they limit such opportunities without offering alternatives. 

Alongside regulation, the government should consider its role in shaping online and offline spaces for young people, and see those in tandem. 

3. Age-specific protections should be treated as part of, and not a replacement for, broader regulation, including safety-by-design standards, pre-deployment safety testing and ongoing monitoring of platforms and chatbots. Any blunt restriction of access to online spaces, such as a ban on social media platforms for young children, will not tackle widespread harms for people of all ages that arise from platform design choices. 

Harms that stem from the design of online spaces, particularly social media platforms, do not finish at 16 or 18. The scope of any new regulatory intervention must extend beyond children-focused measures to improve the digital environment that has become a core component of modern life. Design features that promote rife misinformation, addictive use of platforms and surveillance as the norm, need to be addressed for all users. 

As a first step, the UK government should shape the design of online spaces through the Online Safety Act, one of the aims of which is to ensure that online services are ‘safe by design’. [ref] Lorna Woods, ‘Safety by design’ (2024) https://www.onlinesafetyact.net/documents/173/20241022-safety-by-design.pdf accessed 10 December 2025  [/ref] The government could produce a ‘safety by design’ code of practice to complement the Online Safety Act and prevent harms caused by design features that promote harmful online behaviour or content. [ref] Online Safety Act Network, ‘Strengthening the online safety act: a ten-point plan for government’ (2026) https://www.onlinesafetyact.net/documents/1189/OSA_Network__a_10-point_plan_for_Government.pdf accessed 24 March 2026 [/ref]

In the research, young people highlighted two features in the design of social media platforms that could be amended to improve all users’ online experiences: first, the way existing business models promote antagonising, sometimes hateful, material by monetising content based on the number of views that a post receives; and second, how the use of algorithms reduces young people’s control over their online experiences and sometimes leads to exposure to distressing material. A new code of practice could address harms by mandating that recommendation algorithms promote appropriate content from trusted providers and deprioritise antagonistic content. [ref] Molly Rose Foundation, ‘A roadmap for a better online future’, https://mollyrosefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/web_Roadmap.pdf accessed 24 March 2026 [/ref]

Broader regulation, including safety-by-design standards, should be a condition of market entry for platforms for all ages. Incumbent platforms that do not update their services to meet new standards should be banned from operating in the UK. 

 4. Young people’s right to privacy should be reasserted: its erosion is contributing to data exploitation and self-reported harms. Safety measures must be carefully weighed if they subsequently increase the surveillance of young people, and this should be an area of focus for the Young People’s Board on Digital Futures (see implication 7).  

Privacy issues were raised by multiple participants who felt that additional oversight of young people’s use of digital technologies would pose a risk to their right to privacy, which they said is already threatened by the intense surveillance they experience in online spaces. Therefore, monitoring young people’s communications in online spaces to detect illegal content such as nude images, as proposed by the UK government, [ref] ‘Growing up in the online world: a national conversation’ (GOV.UK) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69a494a6286b6fdc85daeb1c/growing_up_in_the_online_world-national-conversation.pdf accessed 24 March 2026 [/ref] or strengthening age restrictions must be implemented with safeguards that minimise data collection. 

Improving safety and strengthening privacy should not be seen as mutually exclusive, and the government could draw on the newly published measures outlined in the draft Children’s Online Privacy Code from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This code includes additional privacy-enhancing principles specifically for children, such as mandatory mechanisms for people with parental responsibility to input into decisions about the processing of children’s information. In particular, policymakers should draw on the draft code’s measures to ensure that all information provided to children about the processing of their data is age-appropriate and understandable to improve the transparency of any safety measures that are introduced.  

5. The government should regulate AI model developers to address young people’s concerns about the systemic impacts of AI. 

Young people were clear in their demand for meaningful control over how the use of AI shapes their lives, beyond illegal or harmful content. Many young people are concerned about the growing impact of AI on their online and offline experiences. For example, participants raised concerns about the default appearance of AI-generated responses in search engine results or the use of AI in public services that young people draw upon.  

Young people also discussed the potential systemic impacts of AI tools, such as deskilling (the devaluation of certain skills) and reduced opportunities for employment in creative industries.  

The government is right to specifically target the use of AI services for serious offences under the Online Safety Act, as multiple participants identified the use of AI to create pornographic images and facilitate sexual exploitation as a key area of concern. Regulating the underlying models that power AI applications will be necessary to effectively prevent societal harms at their source. [ref] Concerns about societal, systemic and future harms also echoes findings from deliberative research with adults, for example: Eleanor O’Keeffe, ‘Making good’ (Ada Lovelace Institute, 2025) https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/ai-public-good/ accessed 23 March 2026 [/ref]

This point reflects the findings of our previous research on public expectations around AI regulation, which shows that the public support the independent regulation of AI developers, with enforcement, alongside safety assessments before market entry and the ongoing monitoring of AI systems once they have been deployed. [ref] Nuala Polo and others, ‘Great (public) expectations’ (Ada Lovelace Institute, 2025) https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/policy-briefing/great-expectations/ accessed 24 March 2026 [/ref]

6. The government should aim to improve digital literacy for adults as well as children, while understanding this will not be a panacea: improved literacy does not necessarily translate to greater agency without broader regulation.  

Young people in this research were often unable to protect themselves from harm when using digital technologies, despite being acutely aware of how such technologies create harm. Many participants expressed frustration at their inability to control their experiences of online spaces, for example, experiencing misinformation, upsetting content and inappropriate interactions despite their efforts to avoid them. Young people described such negative experiences as prolific and inescapable. 

This suggests that additional efforts to improve digital skills and literacy, as proposed by the UK government, [ref] ‘Growing up in the online world: a national conversation’ (GOV.UK) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69a494a6286b6fdc85daeb1c/growing_up_in_the_online_world-national-conversation.pdf accessed 24 March 2026 [/ref] may be beneficial, but will not be sufficient to allow young people to access online spaces safely. Without mandatory design features that prioritise a user’s ability to choose how they engage with online spaces, particularly social media platforms, young people cannot use their skills and knowledge to protect themselves online. 

Digital literacy should not only focus on young people: young people consistently expressed a desire for two-way conversations with adults in their lives, including parents, carers and youth workers, about their use of digital technologies. Co-designing such conversations at a national level could facilitate more constructive consideration of specific policy proposals and shared learning between young people, older members of the public and policymakers. 

7. The UK government should embed young people’s expertise as it designs new policies to shape the use of digital technologies through the creation of a Young People’s Board on Digital Futures – a standing panel of diverse young people that is co-designed to meaningfully inform policy decisions.  

Restrictions or additional oversight of anyone’s access to the opportunities presented by digital technologies was a serious issue that provoked deep reflection in the peer workshops, as well as the wider Grown up? programme. The depth of these conversations shows that young people’s lived experiences are a powerful resource that need to be fully understood to ensure that decisions at all levels of society balance the need for protection with opportunities for growth and learning. 

The government should work with organisations in areas such as youth work and civil society, that have trusted relationships with young people, to develop a mechanism by which young people can shape policy decisions on an ongoing basis.  

This would enable a legitimate process that allows young people to meaningfully shape the principles by which new technologies are regulated and adopted, as well as one-off policy decisions, so that their experiences inform a proactive approach to ensuring new technologies positively impact their lives. 

There are models for supporting diverse young people to be actively involved in ongoing decision-making processes that the government could adapt for online safety considerations. For example, it could take a similar approach to the Family Justice Young People’s Board, [ref] ‘Family Justice Young People’s Board’ (Cafcass) https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/children-and-young-people/family-justice-young-peoples-board accessed 25 March 2026 [/ref] a board of children and young people with lived experience of the family justice system that supports national and local government bodies to make decisions about the system in England and Wales.  

Functions of the board should be co-created with legitimacy, transparency and clear boundaries about the scope of young people’s influence, reflecting the need for young people to be meaningfully empowered. [ref] Boards and panels can be effective mechanisms to involve young people actively in decisions that affect them. In order to ensure they are effective and trusted by young people and those supporting them in the youth and digital sectors, the co-creation process would need to consider multiple measures of diversity, including representation across the devolved nations, as well as clarity around outcomes and impacts, named institutional responsibility and transparent reporting requirements. Design should aim for the higher rungs on Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation. Sherry R Arnstein, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969) 35 JAIP 35. [/ref] 

They could include: 

Representation:

• Ensuring that the benefits, concerns, risks and opportunities that young people from diverse backgrounds prioritise are heard. 

• Co-designing an ongoing participatory mechanism to input on, for example, red lines or expectations of technology uses. 

Accountability:  

• The board could act as a mechanism for accountability to young people for decisions about their digital lives, complementing existing mechanisms for scrutinising digital policy and practices, such as Ofcom’s Children’s Online Insights Panel. [ref] ‘Children’s Online Insights Panel’ (Ofcom, 2025) https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/childrens-online-insight-panel accessed 11 May 2026 [/ref] 

Scrutiny: 

• Taking evidence from Ofcom and technology companies on their progress around improving the digital environment for young people. 

Monitoring:  

• Tracking and evaluating measures affecting young people’s right to privacy. 

Early insight: 

• Reflecting on the efficacy of new regulations and synthesising emerging evidence of young people’s interactions with technologies. 

• Highlighting how young people’s norms and behaviours are evolving, alerting policymakers to novel issues which might require scrutiny or regulation. 

Deliberation:  

• Using deliberative methods to support the development of a positive vision for digital futures. 

Communication: 

• Offering input on the appropriateness and relevance of communications about policy and practices that affect young people’s digital lives, for example tone, language and accessibility of information about changes to policy and opportunities to input into consultations. 

A broader conclusion from this research is that governmental decisions about young people and technology should be consistent and part of a holistic positive vision for childhood and growing up in the UK today. 

This research shows that young people’s online and offline experiences are not compartmentalised and relationships, experiences and impacts blur between online and offline. As a result, any binary distinction between growing up online and offline is reductive and limits possibilities for effective safeguards. These safeguards must take into account that digital technologies, and particularly online spaces, bring both benefits and harms to young people in different contexts and uses, and harms originating online materialise offline, and vice versa.  

Any restriction to specific online spaces should be balanced with investment in alternative spaces, and access to information and advice. In particular, the government needs to offer a clear and coherent vision about how technology should be integrated into young people’s lives, including social media, AI, gaming and education. The government should take necessary action to deliver that positive vision, one where young people’s use of digital technologies is supported by appropriate controls that allow for safe exploration, while preserving the freedoms young people need to grow up with dignity and agency.