The core assumptions behind the \u201cInternet Children\u201d project remain unchanged. It is a joint initiative of the Institute for Digital Citizenship Foundation, Polskie Badania Internetu<\/em> (Polish Internet Research), Gemius, the State Committee for Counteracting the Sexual Abuse of Minors Below 15 Years of Age. Its aim is to provide reliable, annual data on children and adolescents\u2019 presence online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since March last year, neither the overall number of children online nor the general pattern of their behavior has shifted significantly. What has changed, however, is the tone and momentum of the debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [fotografia]<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs for children\u2019s and adolescents\u2019 behavior, it remains unchanged. The timeframe is simply too short to talk about any lasting social shift. And for a shift like that to happen, it doesn\u2019t depend on us alone as the report\u2019s authors \u2013 it requires action from the state as regulator first and foremost, and then the combined efforts of schools and parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What we did manage to do was spark a broader debate about how much \u2013 and in what way \u2013 children should or shouldn\u2019t use social media. That, in turn, led to campaigns drawing on our data, such as an initiative by the City of Warsaw or training sessions run by a property management company. There have been quite a few citations, uses of the data, and initiatives inspired by our findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s encouraging, because it suggests public awareness may be slowly starting to shift. Whether it is actually changing is something we\u2019ll still need to measure. But even putting the issue on the agenda was enough to trigger sustained media discussion. In practice, the report stayed in circulation throughout the year and was regularly cited. That\u2019s an important achievement we can be proud of,\u201d says Prof. Anna Miotk from the Faculty of Journalism, Information, and Book Studies at the University of Warsaw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key shift between the first and second editions of the report is the move from asking \u201care children online at all?\u201d to \u201chow are they online?\u201d A range of collected data allows researchers to reconstruct a detailed picture of the digital behavior and everyday online functioning of younger users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most of the data in the report concerns 7\u201314-year-olds. Focusing on this age group makes it possible to show how children\u2019s digital lives differ both from adults and from slightly older peers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main data sources are Gemius\u2019s Mediapanel and Hardware Panel, while advertising exposure data comes from the gemiusAdReal study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what do we actually know about the average internet user aged 7\u201314?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Internet access rate in this group stands at 81%, meaning nearly one in five children is still offline. By comparison, internet use among 15\u201324-year-olds is as high as 99%. This may already reflect growing parental awareness, although it is still too early to draw firm conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those who are online, however, are among the most active users. They spend an average of 4 hours and 25 minutes a day online. Between 2 p.m. and 9 p.m., nearly 60% of children aged 7\u201314 pick up their smartphones, and when they do, they spend about 25\u201330 minutes of every hour with their screens on. As much as 88% of their online time takes place on mobile devices, primarily smartphones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Half of their total internet time is absorbed by just two platforms: TikTok (29%) and YouTube (22%). The remainder is spent on games, messaging apps, and other social platforms. While 69% of children and teenagers access educational content online, it accounts for just 1% of their total time \u2013 around six minutes a day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Between 6 and 8 a.m., more than half of children reach for their phones. About 30% open TikTok at that time, with a slightly smaller share turning to Messenger. School hours are among the least intensive periods of smartphone use during the day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On a typical month, school hours account for roughly 13% of total smartphone time among 7\u201314-year-olds. This suggests that the majority of smartphone use takes place outside school, meaning school-based bans alone are not enough to address the broader issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is particularly concerning is that 32% of children aged 7\u201314 have come across the \u201cerotica\u201d category, which includes adult sexual content. This is roughly in line with the overall internet population. The key difference lies in exposure time: for children it is shorter, at around 10 minutes per day, compared with about 20 minutes in the general online population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYounger children tend to have shorter exposure to this kind of content, and sometimes they come across it through ads or redirects. A friend \u2013 or even a stranger online \u2013 might send it their way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what we\u2019re seeing is that there is still a significant number of children who visit adult content sites regularly, and these are not just isolated or accidental incidents. They know these sites exist, and they actively go there to view this kind of material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And there are virtually no protective mechanisms in place. You can simply type the address of such a site into a smartphone browser, tick a box saying you\u2019re over 18, and watch freely,\u201d Prof. Miotk adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the first edition of the report was published, children\u2019s interactions with artificial intelligence were not included. Today, it turns out that children and teenagers are already familiar with AI tools to a similar extent as other internet users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ChatGPT reaches 43% of users, while nearly one in five (18%) uses it actively and on a regular basis. What is particularly concerning \u2013 both socially and from a research perspective \u2013 is exposure to AI-generated content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since we do not have a clear picture of how children spend their time on TikTok or YouTube, it is difficult to say what content they most frequently interact with. However, given the ubiquity of AI-generated content, it likely makes up a substantial share of what they encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The biggest issue here is not so-called \u201cAI slop\u201d \u2013 low-quality videos or memes \u2013 but sexualized deepfakes. This is not an entirely new problem, but it has taken on a new form. The first edition of the \u201cInternet of Children\u201d report already highlighted that younger internet users are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and are regularly exposed to sexual content \u2013 and sometimes even direct sexual advances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Generative AI has significantly amplified the scale of sexualized material involving children. This includes CSAM (child sexual abuse material): photos, videos, AI-generated images, and other content depicting or implying sexual violence against minors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to data cited in the report from WeProtect, the amount of AI-generated material increased by 1,325% in 2025, while the scale of grooming \u2013 rose by 192%. INHOPE also recorded a 450% increase in CSAM reports, and the Internet Watch Foundation reported a 127% rise in sexual extortion cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the two cases are not comparable in terms of their social impact, the data on children\u2019s exposure to alcohol advertising \u2013 particularly beer ads \u2013 is just as striking. This example clearly highlights the broader problem of children\u2019s unregulated presence online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c1.2 million children aged 7\u201314 have been exposed to beer ads in major social media apps. That\u2019s what struck me the most. In the case of TV, there are clear rules protecting children from alcohol advertising \u2013 some products can\u2019t be advertised at all, while others are only allowed in specific time slots. Online, by contrast, children are exposed to these ads under the same conditions as adults \u2013 on exactly the same footing,\u201d the researcher notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Traditional media operate within a long-standing social contract: certain content is off-limits, and children are not meant to see it. That\u2019s also why the red 18+ badge that appears in the corner of a TV screen during certain films has become a familiar, accepted part of the viewing experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Online, however, all of this is effectively suspended. The rules no longer seem to apply \u2013 as if they had never existed. Beer advertising may be the clearest example, but the same logic plays out across the digital space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thanks to the reports, public awareness \u2013 and, in turn, the public debate \u2013 is gradually evolving. Still, there is a long way to go. At the same time, the internet is an ever-changing environment, making it difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation that could permanently resolve all of its structural problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A decade ago, when concerns about the harms of social media platforms were only just beginning to surface, many of today\u2019s challenges \u2013 such as the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence \u2013 were not even on the horizon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLaw isn\u2019t something fixed \u2013 it evolves as circumstances change. So even if, in an ideal world, all these proposals were implemented, new issues and new areas in need of regulation would inevitably keep emerging. That said, a satisfactory balance is still achievable. In the case of TV and children\u2019s content, things are actually fairly well regulated \u2013 even if the occasional slip-up still happens,\u201d says Prof. Miotk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is why the researchers behind the report put forward a broad range of solutions. On the one hand, these include recommendations aimed at policymakers, such as establishing an independent body responsible for children\u2019s online safety, and strengthening the effectiveness of existing child protection regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, they are directed primarily at platform owners \u2013 for example, limiting the use of addictive design features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and notification systems, as well as restricting profiling and advertising targeted at children and adolescents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe first step should be a catalogue of digital services, where platforms are classified both by safety level and age suitability. To draw an analogy, it would work like TV content ratings: this is 16+, this is 18+, this is, say, 12+. We should also demand \u2013 as citizens, as a state, and through our elected representatives \u2013 that platforms take responsibility for the content they host.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In our report, we set out a broad set of principles for ethical design. The key ones include turning off infinite scroll \u2013 in other words, bringing back solutions from the early internet, such as page-based navigation. Another is non-manipulative interface design, so users can actually choose what they see and have more control over algorithmic decisions. And then there is algorithm design itself \u2013 so that it doesn\u2019t polarize or disinform, but instead ensures that time spent on platforms is genuinely valuable for users,\u201d the researcher summarizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As noted earlier, children\u2019s digital daily life starts very early. Between 6 and 8 a.m., around 30% of them open TikTok, with slightly fewer checking Messenger. In the latter case, it\u2019s hard not to think of class group chats, messages from friends, or that early-morning check-in to see what\u2019s happened before the school day even begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This clearly shows why bans alone are not enough. The internet is no longer a separate place children \u201center\u201d after school \u2013 it is woven into their mornings, relationships, downtime, boredom, learning, and social life. Access to specific apps can be restricted, but it is hard to pretend the digital world can simply be cut out of children\u2019s everyday reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is why the question is no longer just how much time children spend online. What matters more is the kind of online world they are growing up in \u2013 whether it is a space designed with their safety, age, and vulnerability in mind, or an environment governed by a single principle: keeping users engaged for as long as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If children are to grow up in the internet as well, then the internet cannot be left to its own devices \u2013 especially when it comes to those least able to defend themselves against it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The text was originally published in Polish on the Serwis Naukowy UW website on June 19, 2026.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One in three children aged 7\u201314 has been exposed to adult sexual content online, while around 1.2 million have encountered beer advertisements in social media apps, according to the second edition of the \u201cInternet Children\u201d report. The findings suggest the challenge is no longer simply that children are present online, but the kind of digital environment we are allowing them to grow up in.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":9629,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[236],"tags":[148,1836,1809,1374,714,1414,1804,1802,712,1803,1387],"class_list":["post-9628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-media","tag-ai","tag-children-on-the-internet","tag-department-of-social-communication-and-public-relations","tag-faculty-of-journalism","tag-gemius","tag-information-and-book-studies","tag-institute-for-digital-citizenship-foundation","tag-internet-of-children-a-report-on-the-monitoring-of-the-presence-of-children-and-adolescents-on-the-internet","tag-polskie-badania-internetu","tag-state-committee-for-counteracting-the-sexual-abuse-of-minors-below-15-years-of-age","tag-university-of-warsaw"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9628"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9628\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9640,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9628\/revisions\/9640"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Wykres_1-1024x556.webp\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Wykres_2-1024x633.webp\")
Old problems, a new twist<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Wykres_4-1024x440.webp\")
When bans aren\u2019t enough: what can be done?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Wykres_5-1024x507.webp\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Wykres_7-1024x536.webp\")
\n\n\n\n