Prince Harry is both misguided and, I believe, potentially harmful when it comes to discussing the issue of online safety for children and parents. His lack of understanding on the subject is evident, and the advice he provides might do more harm than good. This was particularly clear in a recent conversation he had with Jonathan Hyde, who authored a book titled *The Anxious Generation*, which explores the increasing anxiety among children and young people, likely influenced by the internet.
While Hyde’s book seems valuable, Prince Harry’s contribution to the conversation was not. In fact, I find him to be a particularly bad advocate on this topic. Today, we’ll break down some of the key points from their video, focusing on Harry’s comments, which highlight his lack of understanding. He advocates for things like children finding support in online communities rather than talking to their families or friends in person—a dangerous suggestion. He also calls for online censorship, advocating for social media companies to determine what information we can access. This has the potential to go terribly wrong, as history has shown.
We’re going to dive into this, because the direction Harry is heading is troubling, and I want to explain why I believe his ideas are misguided. If you’re new to *Royal News Network*, my name is Britney, and I provide in-depth royal commentary. Be sure to hit that subscribe button if you'd like to hear more from me in the future.
As for the interview, it's surprisingly underexposed. The video on Jonathan Hyde’s site has only about 3,000 views. For comparison, I can get 3,000 views in half an hour, which suggests that even the Archwell staff might be hesitant to promote this conversation. Frankly, it’s not hard to see why—Harry’s performance here is quite poor.
One of the most glaring issues is how Harry oversimplifies complex topics like social media’s role in children’s lives, personal autonomy, and parental responsibility. He doesn’t seem to grasp the depth of these issues, and what he advocates for might actually lead children into more dangerous situations. Even Archwell staff might recognize that Harry's contributions are unhelpful, judging by the lack of promotion.
Hyde and Harry’s conversation is hosted on another website too, which seems odd. Harry and Meghan have a pattern of avoiding media engagement while simultaneously relying on it, and their efforts to promote themselves are inconsistent at best. This disjointed approach is part of Harry’s attempt to reinvent himself as a philanthropist—though, frankly, he doesn't have the means or understanding to excel in this role. He’s left without a real job and seems unable to take on any "big boy" responsibilities, so this is where he lands.
Let’s get into the content of the video itself. We won’t cover the entire interview, but I'll point out the key moments where Harry’s comments become particularly problematic. For instance, he does this odd flip-flop where he says, “The internet is bad, but it’s also good.” There’s a fundamental lack of coherence in his messaging.
In the interview, Harry talks about how the internet is taking away young people’s childhoods, which is true to some extent. But the solution seems simple: don’t give your kids smartphones at a young age. It’s not rocket science, yet Harry never addresses this. Instead, he leans on vague ideas about how social media companies need to step up and do more to protect children.
The reality is that parents have more control than Harry seems to realize. Growing up, my mom was incredibly intentional about what we could and couldn’t do. She didn’t just hand us the latest gadgets because other kids had them. There are plenty of parents today who are similarly cautious and proactive about keeping their kids away from social media, at least until they’re mature enough to handle it.
But Harry seems to want social media companies to step in and take over the role of parenting. This is both unrealistic and dangerous. A company’s primary goal is to make money, not raise children. So why would we expect them to make decisions in the best interest of kids? It's up to parents to set boundaries, monitor their children’s online activities, and ensure they’re safe.
The suggestion that social media companies “own childhood” is absurd. Parents still have the power to limit their children’s exposure to social media, and many do. Yes, it’s harder now, but it’s not impossible. It takes effort, and unfortunately, some parents might not be willing to put in that effort. But that doesn’t mean the responsibility should fall to tech companies.
Later in the conversation, Harry implies that social media companies should censor content to protect children. He seems to believe that companies can step in and “fix” the internet. But the reality is that the internet reflects human nature—there’s good and bad, and you can’t filter out the negative without compromising the entire platform. What Harry is suggesting would create a bland, sanitized version of social media that no one would use.
Harry’s concern about misinformation online largely stems from the fact that people are critical of him and Meghan. He wants to curb social media because it affects them personally, but his proposals are shortsighted and self-serving. In advocating for these changes, he risks making things worse for children by pushing the responsibility away from parents and into the hands of corporations.
At the end of the day, I strongly believe that Harry’s advice is misguided. If parents follow his suggestions, they may end up doing more harm than good. While it’s important to address the challenges posed by social media, Harry’s approach is not the solution.
Parenting is far from easy. It’s incredibly difficult, and yes, you will face tough decisions. There will be times when you find yourself in conflict with your children, especially when trying to protect them. Take, for instance, the issue of phone safety. You might think, "Your phone is safe now," but there's more to consider. There are scary individuals online—adults who actively try to engage with children on social media platforms. So, what can you do to protect your kids? Well, not letting them access the internet unsupervised seems obvious. However, it's not always that simple because, as parents, we can’t control everything. Kids go to school where they might use iPads, or visit friends’ houses where they could have unsupervised access to the internet.
Every parent has experienced that moment when their child comes back from a sleepover knowing something new—something they weren't ready to learn yet. This points to the need for intentional parenting. You have to be mindful of who your child's friends are. Do you really know the families they're spending time with, or are you letting your kid stay over with people you barely know? When I had sleepovers growing up, we knew the families well, so there weren't many surprises.
Prince Harry, on the other hand, seems to lack this level of understanding. His view on these issues often appears overly simplistic and detached from reality. Many parents give their children phones at a younger age, often for safety reasons. But instead of giving them a smartphone, why not opt for a basic phone? I had a brick phone once—a Nokia, to be exact. It couldn’t do much, but it served its purpose. It allowed calls and emergencies, which is all a kid really needs. Harry and Meghan, however, seem to approach parenting with a hands-off attitude, hoping the internet will do the job for them.
Of course, giving your child a basic phone means they can still reach you if there's an emergency. And this isn’t just about kids—plenty of adults have switched back to simple phones to avoid distractions or temptations like gambling or addictive behaviors online. But making that switch requires personal discipline. Unfortunately, Harry seems to think the solution lies in changing social media companies rather than addressing the core issue.
Harry’s stance on social media addiction feels reminiscent of prohibition in the United States. When alcohol was banned, did people stop drinking? No—they found other ways, such as speakeasies, to get around the law. The point is, people need to make the personal choice to change their behavior, not just ban the product. Yet, Harry’s approach seems overly simplistic: if he could just get the companies to change, everything would magically be fixed.
The reality is that parenting is hard. Yes, we want our kids to have phones for emergencies, but kids are clever. Even if you tell them not to download certain apps, they might still find a way around it. This is why the simplest solution, albeit a tough one, is to avoid giving them a smartphone in the first place.
Harry's solution feels lazy. He wants to keep up with the Joneses, but without making the hard choices. In contrast, William and Kate seem to be far more intentional in their parenting. Do their kids have smartphones? Likely not. But they probably have some emergency device since their roles in the royal family demand a certain level of security. Harry doesn’t seem to grasp this kind of intentional parenting.
Then there’s the issue of tech companies claiming they can’t verify age due to privacy concerns. Every time you do something online, should you have to upload an ID? Even then, IDs can be faked. It's not a simple solution, yet Harry’s perspective oversimplifies it. He believes that if companies change their practices, they’ll be saving humanity. But it’s not that straightforward.
Let’s move on to another point Harry made: these apps are designed to hook children and keep them online for as long as possible. That’s true, but they’re also designed for adults. Instagram, TikTok—these platforms aren’t specifically for children, they’re created with adults in mind. The problem arises when adults can’t control their own usage and then expect kids to do the same. If Harry struggles with phone addiction, that’s on him. But parents can still make the decision to set limits for their kids.
For example, you could set a timer for your social media use. Let’s say you only want to spend 10 minutes on Twitter. When the timer goes off, do you have the self-discipline to stop, or do you ignore the alarm and keep scrolling? This is where personal decision-making comes in, and it's something Harry seems to shy away from. He doesn’t want to make the tough calls; he wants the companies to do it for him.
During endless scrolling, harmful content can be pushed to users, including content suggesting things like suicide. While this is a real issue, Harry’s solution isn’t addressing the root cause. Parents need to take responsibility. Why are kids allowed to scroll mindlessly? Why are they left unsupervised online? Harry seems to think censorship is the answer, but it’s not. The real answer lies in making hard decisions as a parent, even if it means being the bad guy.
I suspect many of the parents Harry is trying to help don’t want to be the bad guy. But sometimes, tough love is necessary to protect our children. You can’t control everything as a parent, but you can control certain aspects, especially when it comes to your child's exposure to the internet. The key here is making personal decisions, not relying on a company to do it for you. It’s like trusting a company to make critical choices about your child’s safety rather than stepping in yourself. And yes, social media apps can be addictive, but the responsibility lies with us, not the tech giants.
I remember trying to be more active on TikTok at one point, just scrolling endlessly. But then I realized it didn’t really appeal to me, so I stopped. Now, I watch a lot of YouTube, partly because I enjoy it and partly because it sparks ideas for me. But the point is, I made the conscious decision to turn off TikTok, and that’s what Harry doesn’t seem to understand—making tough personal decisions. Instead, he wants companies like Meta to fix the problem.
But here’s the hard truth: social media platforms are not going to change just because Prince Harry complains. Why would they? These platforms are designed to be addictive, and they generate enormous revenue. It’s not realistic to expect them to overhaul their entire model overnight.
Think about this: if we wait for these companies to make the necessary changes, months or even years could go by, during which our kids are exposed to all kinds of harmful content on social media. That’s time we could have avoided them being on these platforms in the first place.
If we treat social media the way we treat other potentially harmful things—like casino gambling, smoking, or even buying a gun—then maybe we could understand its real risks. Harry’s idea of simply adding age restrictions is naïve. Addiction, whether it’s to alcohol or social media, isn’t something a law or restriction can solve. It's a personal decision. People must choose to overcome it themselves.
Let’s not forget, social media platforms are designed for adults, not children. Apps like Instagram and TikTok aren’t made with kids in mind, and yet children are using them. But ultimately, it’s up to the parents to limit that usage. I get it, being a parent is hard, and sometimes you don’t want to be the bad guy, but you need to make those tough calls. Harry’s solution—hoping companies will make the internet safer—just doesn’t cut it.
I get the sense that Harry is pushing for easy fixes when in reality, it requires intentional parenting. Parents need to understand that handing kids a phone and expecting them to navigate the dangers of the internet without guidance is not going to end well. In contrast, I believe William and Catherine are very intentional with how they raise their children, limiting smartphone use and fostering in-person relationships.
Here’s the real danger: kids today are forming connections online with people they don’t really know. These are often superficial relationships that can turn dark quickly. I’ve seen documentaries on how vulnerable children are coaxed into dangerous situations by people pretending to be something they’re not. These kids think they’ve found a friend or even a romantic partner, only to discover they’ve been talking to a predator.
This is why encouraging children to seek comfort or advice from strangers online is such a terrible idea. Kids are looking for acceptance, support, and guidance, and if they don’t get that from their parents, they will search for it elsewhere. And the internet is full of people ready to exploit that vulnerability.
Harry should be advocating for better parent-child relationships, not promoting the idea that kids should turn to strangers online for solace. The idea that children should rely on the internet for support because they can’t confide in their parents is dangerous. It opens the door to all sorts of risks—risks that are entirely preventable with proper parenting.
And let’s be honest, the internet is not a replacement for real human interaction. Relationships formed online are often superficial and fleeting. They don’t carry the same weight as those developed face-to-face. We’ve lost the sense of community that older generations had, where neighbors supported one another, and families spent time together in meaningful ways. Social media has made it easier for people, including kids, to seek validation from strangers rather than forming strong, real-life connections.
Harry’s approach to this issue is baffling to me. He seems to be advocating for something that is clearly dangerous, without recognizing the long-term consequences. If kids can’t confide in their parents, then it’s the parents’ job to create an environment where they feel safe to do so—not to push them toward the internet, where predators lurk.
It’s terrifying how easily children can fall into dangerous situations online, believing they’ve found a friend or confidant, when in reality, they’ve been lured into something sinister. If we want to protect our children, it’s time to stop waiting for tech companies to step in and start making the tough parenting decisions ourselves.If you're a parent, how do you know if your child is getting the most out of social media? Prince Harry is saying that while social media is often seen as negative, kids meeting strangers online can sometimes be positive. But there's a contradiction here—he acknowledges social media's risks yet suggests there's good in forming online connections with strangers. Back in the '90s, there was something called "stranger danger," and that concept should still apply to the internet. Harry may not fully understand this or recognize the dangers kids face online.
How do you handle this as a parent? Shouldn't you be keeping tabs on your kids and their online activities? According to advice from parenting networks, the key is to follow your children—be mindful and conscientious. Conscious parenting plays a crucial role here. It seems many parents have a decent understanding of the risks their kids face online, but it's still essential to stay engaged in what your kids are exposed to on a daily basis.
At the same time, you have to question why children are engaging with communities online. In certain situations, such as living in isolated areas, the internet can be helpful for building connections. However, you need to be careful about who your kids are interacting with online because people can lie, and that possibility doesn’t seem to occur to Harry. He touches on the issue but doesn’t go far enough in understanding the risks.
So how do you prevent kids from bypassing parental control and talking to strangers online without your knowledge? One solution is not to give them unrestricted access to devices like phones or iPads. You could lock them up at night, for example. This might be a difficult choice, but Harry appears to miss the core danger: kids can have seemingly innocent conversations while engaging in more harmful ones elsewhere. Yet, he emphasizes that kids are forming online communities without the need for real-life connections, and somehow, that’s a good thing.
However, tech companies aren't designing these apps with children in mind. The apps are intended for adults. And while Harry is advocating for social media reform, the reality is more complicated. Even if teens use platforms like Instagram and experience negative effects, such as worsening body image issues, what can the platform do? Instagram wasn't built for kids, and it’s not Meta's responsibility to control how adults share aspirational content.
There's no perfect solution. As a parent or individual, you need to decide how you engage online. Do you want external forces like the government or companies making decisions for you? That's not the solution Harry is proposing, but his ideas lean in that direction. The real question is how to teach kids to use social media responsibly instead of trying to reform entire platforms.
Harry also brings up the issue of kids being left out of conversations about internet safety. While children recognize the benefits and harms of being online, they are not the ones who should be redesigning multibillion-dollar corporations like Meta. These platforms aren't designed for kids, and giving them control over how they work doesn't make sense. It's far more practical to teach children how to engage with social media safely than to expect them to reimagine the platforms themselves.
The reality is that tech companies, like Meta, aren't going to redesign their apps to cater to children. The systems are too complex, with billions of dollars invested and millions of hours of work behind them. It’s not as simple as making a quick fix, as Harry seems to suggest. There's a lot of technical and proprietary knowledge behind these platforms that Harry doesn’t seem to grasp fully.
