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. 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. 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. 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. 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

What evidence does Lillian provide to support her claim that tech companies bear primary responsibility for children's addictions?

Justification

They use features like infinite scrolling, autoplay, personalized algorithms, and push notifications to hook users

They rely solely on children's curiosity without designing specific features

They offer voluntary parental controls without implementing addictive design

They partner with schools to distribute unmonitored devices

How did Lillian respond to Guide's analogy comparing tech companies to candy manufacturers and toy companies?

Justification

She argued that parents are primarily responsible for preventing addiction

She agreed that both industries should share responsibility equally

She distinguished social media's adaptive algorithms from candy's simple appeal to taste as hooks

She claimed that candy and toys are more harmful than social media

Towards the end of the discussion, how did Lillian characterize the effectiveness of parental supervision in preventing screen addiction?

Justification

She claimed supervision could fully prevent addiction if applied consistently

She suggested that supervision may slow addiction but cannot prevent it, so it does not establish primary causation

She stated that supervision is irrelevant because children naturally resist limits

She maintained that supervision should remove all technology to be effective

When Zoe asked if stricter regulations on social media were needed, what regulatory approach did Lillian endorse?

Justification

Self-regulation by tech companies through voluntary age warnings

Banning all social media access for children under 18

Allowing parents to adjust settings only after addiction has occurred

Implementing age-appropriate restrictions similar to movie ratings and requiring parental consent as with medical procedures

In Guide's initial challenge to Lillian, what analogy did Guide use to test her argument about who bears primary responsibility?

Justification

Comparing parents to teachers in supervising children

Comparing tech companies to candy manufacturers for obesity and toy companies for materialism

Comparing social media to pharmaceutical marketing for prescription drugs

Comparing video game companies to automobile manufacturers for safety

Lillian

What rationale did Zoe first provide for why parents should supervise their child's social media use, despite agreeing tech companies make these platforms addictive?

Justification

She argued that only parents can step in to prevent addictive use before it develops.

She argued that schools' use of social media means parents must watch closely.

She referenced a documentary to support her view that parents must limit access.

She claimed that regulating social media should be entirely the schools' responsibility.

How did Zoe respond when Guide questioned whether parents could realistically prevent exposure given social media's essential role in peer connection and school requirements?

Justification

She suggested parents could demand schools ban smartphones entirely.

She proposed more schools banning phones and parents using screen-time monitoring.

She argued that without any restrictions, addiction is inevitable.

She insisted that peer connection was less important than preventing addiction.

When Zoe conceded that tech companies currently hold primary responsibility, which conditional did she cite as illustrating how responsibility could shift to parents?

Justification

If age-based restrictions were applied to social media, parents would then bear primary responsibility.

If schools banned smartphones, parents would no longer need to supervise social media use.

If social media had less educational integration, responsibility would shift to teachers and districts.

If more documentaries were produced, parents would be better equipped to manage screen time.

What justification did Zoe give for parents still having a major role despite admitting they cannot entirely prevent social media addiction?

Justification

Parents can completely eliminate exposure by banning devices at home.

Parents' emotional support outweighs any design flaws in social media platforms.

Parents can slow down addiction through screen-time monitoring and daily usage limits.

Parents should delegate supervision duties to school administrators instead of monitoring at home.

How did Guide challenge your and Zoe's assumptions about parental responsibility in the face of social media's integration into daily life?

Justification

Social media is essential for peer connection and schools require tech access, making prevention unrealistic.

Parents must apply age ratings similar to movies to govern social media use.

Tech companies are like candy makers, so they should bear the responsibility for addiction.

Only parents' vigilance can counteract the sophisticated algorithms used by platforms.

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

Somewhat
disagree

No idea

Somewhat
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