Meta gives parents more tools to monitor teens online, but the hard part still depends on families

Meta is again trying to show that it can make its platforms safer for young people. The technology company recently announced a new set of tools designed to give parents more oversight of how their children use Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and Horizon. The changes are part of a broader international push by Meta to strengthen protections for younger users, especially as governments, regulators and child safety advocates continue to demand stronger action from social media companies.

The company is also expanding age assurance checks that are meant to place users between the ages of 13 and 17 into teen accounts. Those teen accounts come with additional restrictions and protections. Meta has said the rollout will include the United States and other countries, following earlier implementation in Australia in 2025.

At the same time, Meta is introducing new age checks and making it easier to report users who may be underage. The goal is to help remove accounts belonging to children who are not old enough to use the platforms.

On paper, the changes sound like a stronger safety net. The company wants to use artificial intelligence, account activity, platform behavior and parental supervision tools to identify children who should not be on its services and give families more visibility into what teenagers are doing online.

But the bigger question is whether these tools will work in real life.

That answer is more complicated.

Meta’s new system will use artificial intelligence to look for clues about a user’s age. The company says these clues may include visual indicators, such as height and body structure, along with information found in posts, videos, photos, captions, bios and comments.

For example, the system may look for references to school grades, birthday celebrations or other details that suggest a user is younger than the age listed on the account. If Meta believes a user is under 13, that account may be deactivated.

article continues below...

The company is also expanding the process for reporting suspected underage accounts. Reports will be reviewed using a combination of AI and human reviewers, which Meta says should allow those reports to be handled more quickly and more reliably.

The idea is to create more than one path for identifying underage users. AI scans may catch some accounts. User reports may catch others. Human review may help correct mistakes.

Still, age checks are not perfect.

One major concern is whether children and teenagers will find ways around the system. Young users have often been quick to adapt when platforms introduce restrictions. If the system looks for clues in posts, profiles or captions, some teens may simply adjust what they post or how they describe themselves online.

That creates a difficult problem for platforms. The more they reveal about how their systems work, the easier it may become for some users to avoid detection. But if the systems are too hidden, families, regulators and the public may have less confidence in whether they are fair or accurate.

There is also the risk of mistakes. Some users may be wrongly flagged as underage. Meta says users who are incorrectly reported or identified will be able to go through age checks to keep their accounts. But any system that uses AI to estimate age will need careful oversight, especially when access to communication, information and social connection may be affected.

Alongside the age checks, Meta is also consolidating parental supervision tools into a single “Family Centre.” This hub will bring together oversight features for Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and Horizon.

Through Family Centre, parents will be able to receive notifications when their teens add new topics or interests across Meta platforms. These topics could include areas such as photography, sports, beauty or other general interests.

Meta says this will help parents stay informed and have more meaningful conversations with their children about the content they are following.

That is a useful idea, but it also has limits.

Knowing that a teen follows “beauty,” for example, does not tell a parent whether the content is harmless makeup advice, healthy self-expression, commercial influencer content or material that promotes unrealistic body standards. A topic such as “sports” may include positive athletic content, but it may also include messaging around body image, gender stereotypes, gambling, toxic competition or harmful comparison.

A general label does not tell the full story.

For these tools to make a real difference, parents would have to do more than glance at a notification. They would need to talk to their children, ask what they are seeing, understand the tone of the content and pay attention to how it affects mood, self-image, behavior and relationships.

That is where the challenge becomes less technological and more human.

Meta can build a dashboard. It can send alerts. It can organize supervision settings in one place. But parents still have to use the tools, and teenagers still have to accept supervision in some cases.

In Australia, this is especially important because children under 16 are not allowed to hold social media accounts under the country’s restrictions. That means the topic visibility tools will mainly apply to parents of 16- and 17-year-olds on Instagram and Facebook.

Even then, access is not automatic. Parents have to send an invitation asking to supervise the account, and the teenager has to accept it.

That gives young people a measure of privacy, which is important. Children and teenagers have rights to privacy and access to information. They are not simply extensions of their parents. Online safety systems must therefore balance protection with the rights of young people to communicate, learn, explore and develop independence.

At the same time, this structure means parental oversight depends heavily on cooperation. A teen who does not want a parent to see topic interests can decline the invitation. A parent who is not digitally confident may never send the invitation in the first place.

That is one of the main weaknesses of parental control systems. They often depend on parents knowing the tools exist, understanding how to use them and having a relationship with their children that allows conversation rather than conflict.

Research on parental controls has shown mixed results. Some families benefit from these tools, especially when parents have stronger digital literacy and use controls as part of broader communication. In some cases, controls can help reduce risks such as cyberbullying or exposure to harmful content.

But other studies have found no clear benefit, or even negative outcomes, including increased conflict within families. If young people feel watched rather than supported, supervision tools may damage trust. If parents use the tools without conversation, teenagers may hide more, share less or move to other platforms.

That is why Meta’s new features should not be seen as a complete solution. They may help, but only if they are used carefully.

The company itself has previously acknowledged that parental controls often go unused. In 2024, Meta’s then global affairs chief Nick Clegg said that even when the company builds these controls, parents do not always use them.

That reality sits at the center of the issue.

Technology companies are under growing pressure to do more to protect young people online. Governments are becoming more willing to regulate. Parents are increasingly concerned about screen time, harmful content, online grooming, bullying, self-image, addictive design and algorithmic recommendations. Researchers continue to examine links between frequent social media use and mental health concerns, including negative body image.

Meta’s new tools respond to that pressure. They show that the company is trying to strengthen age detection, consolidate family oversight and give parents more information about what shapes a teen’s online experience.

But the tools also reveal the limits of platform-based safety systems.

AI can search for clues, but it cannot fully understand family context. A topic label can identify a category, but it cannot explain whether the content is helping or harming a child. A reporting tool can flag an account, but it cannot guarantee that every underage user will be found. A parental dashboard can create visibility, but it cannot replace trust, conversation and judgment.

The success of these changes will therefore depend on several factors: whether Meta’s age assurance technology can accurately identify underage users, whether children can easily avoid detection, whether human review is fair and timely, whether parents actually use the tools, and whether teenagers are willing to participate in supervision.

It will also depend on whether regulators believe Meta is doing enough.

In countries such as Australia, where social media restrictions for children are already in place, platforms are facing closer scrutiny over compliance. Meta’s latest updates may help demonstrate that it is taking those obligations seriously. But they are unlikely to end the debate.

The deeper problem is that online safety for children cannot be solved by one company announcement or one new set of features. Social media is now woven into communication, education, entertainment, friendship, identity and culture. Young people use these platforms not only to consume content, but to belong.

That makes safety work more difficult.

Protecting children online requires more than removing underage accounts or sending parents topic alerts. It requires better platform design, stronger enforcement, clearer regulation, digital literacy, family communication and public understanding of how algorithms shape attention and behavior.

Meta’s new tools may be a step in that direction. They may give some parents more insight. They may help remove some underage accounts. They may create more openings for conversations between parents and teenagers.

But they are not foolproof.

Children who want to remain on social media may find ways to do so. Parents who are overwhelmed, busy or unsure may not use the tools. Teens who value privacy may reject supervision. And even when controls are in place, harmful content can still be difficult to identify through broad topic categories.

The technology may improve, but the hardest part remains unchanged: keeping young people safe online still depends on the relationship between platforms, regulators, parents and children themselves.

Meta has given families more tools. Whether those tools work will depend on whether they become part of real conversations, real oversight and real accountability.

Source credit: Based on an article by Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences and Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University, originally published by The Conversation.

‍