Children and digital closeness a conversation without a phone inspection

‘At least it listens to me.’ A parent may hear reproach and begin defending themselves. First try asking what the child means by ‘listens’. Do they have enough time in the application? Can they finish a sentence? Does the character share their interest, or never contradict them? Each answer shows a different need.

In the Czech study Czech Pupils in the Online World 2025, 14% of respondents said they found it easier to confide in AI than in a person. Palacký University’s official summary describes main analyses of 42,772 respondents aged 13–17, data collected in spring 2025 and publication of the relevant section in June 2026.^[1] ‘Easier’ tells us about ease of disclosure. It does not say whom children prefer, how many friends they have or what health impact the contact had.

Imagine the difference between ‘Does the child confide more in AI than in me?’ and ‘What makes it easier for them to say something there?’ The second question can open a conversation about embarrassment, fear of a reaction or needing to finish speaking. The number of adults around a child does not itself tell us whom they can confide in.

A conversation without a phone inspection

Ask what the child uses the tool for, what they enjoy and whether they received a response that did not fit. Even without reading intimate content, you can learn something important: ‘What will you do when the character persuades you to stay but you want to go?’

Privacy is not itself a sign of a problem. Changes such as repeatedly lost sleep, fear, uncontrolled spending, neglected needs or refusing care deserve attention. Describe them specifically: ‘Lately you go to sleep very late, and school is harder for you in the morning. We need to find out what stops you sleeping.’ The conversation then need not begin with an argument over whether the child may like AI.

If use is part of the problem, restricting it may be necessary. A ban should neither be the automatic first response nor an option ruled out beforehand. Ordinary play with fiction differs from unsuitable sexual content, coercion or immediate danger. Do not apply the framework of adult romantic fantasy to a child without further consideration.

What an adult should provide

Before using a particular service, check age, communication mode, data protection and payment terms. Responsibility for an unsuitable environment must not end with saying the child should have set boundaries. In 2026, Australian regulator eSafety published findings of inadequate child protection in selected companion services, including against sexually explicit content. It examined particular services during a particular period.^[2] To choose an application today, therefore, alongside this experience you need to verify its current form; the findings cannot produce a universal safety ranking.

For younger children, we recommend shared, bounded use for a particular activity instead of constant private contact with a character. Do not use an adult account to bypass children’s restrictions. Set the device so it has no unnecessary permissions or uncontrolled payments. Explain rules about addresses, school, photographs and passwords simply, but do not rely only on remembering them.

You can tell a child:

‘That character puts answers together using a program. It can mix something up or make assumptions. If it says something strange, unpleasant or secret, you can discuss it with me.’

Do not require a technical definition. What matters more is that the child need not meet every demand and may leave. ‘You don’t have to continue just because the application says it will be sad.’ The explanation need not ridicule their imagination.

An offer alongside a restriction

When you ask for less time with AI, offer something specific: regular time together, help joining an activity the child enjoys or contact with an available adult at school. Not as a reward for handing over the phone. As a part of life they can rely on at other times too.

Cooking, going out or playing can remain ordinary shared activities. Ask what the child wants to experience. And during agreed time together, notice your own device use too.

When a personally meaningful service must be restricted, account for loss. Unexpectedly deleting the whole history as punishment may add another difficulty. Explain the reason for the protective change and arrange support. Acknowledging sadness does not mean an obligation to restore unlimited access.

How to talk about it at school

Use prepared characters, not pupils’ personal conversations. For the first example, a fictional transcript in which a chatbot infers permanent rejection from one missing invitation suffices. Pupils distinguish what was said from what the system added. In the second, a character can pressure continued contact even though the user wants to go to training. The third task can be completely neutral: write to a club organiser asking whether a beginner can come.

There is no need to create accounts or expose children to a live model for them to understand the mechanism. Do not ask them to vote on who in the class has a similar relationship. Personal disclosures are not teaching material.

A child can ask for help at any time. An urgent disclosure does not wait until the lesson ends: public analysis stops and support is arranged according to school procedure. The rule against sharing personal experiences protects privacy; it does not prevent disclosure. The school must know in advance which available person will receive the concern, rather than look for the whole procedure only in distress.^[3]

For suspected abuse, sexual abuse and serious neglect, follow the Czech Ministry of Education’s guidance and the school’s current duties. Do not investigate the child, promise absolute secrecy or wait to collect evidence yourself. If a parent or caregiver is suspected of causing harm, it is inappropriate to automatically tell them the entire disclosure or confront them with it.^[3:1]