An internet safety campaign backed by US tech companies has been accused of censoring two teenagers they invited to speak out about the biggest issues facing children online.
Childnet, a UK charity part-funded by companies including Snap, Roblox and Meta, edited out warnings from Lewis Swire and Saamya Ghai that social media addiction was an “imminent threat to our future” and obsessive scrolling was making people “sick”, according to a record of edits seen by the Guardian.
Swire, then 17, from Edinburgh, and Ghai, then 14, from Buckinghamshire, had been asked to speak at an event to mark Safer Internet Day in 2024 in London in front of representatives from government, charities and tech companies.
The tech-backed charity also edited out references to children feeling unable to stop using TikTok and Snap, social media exacerbating a “devastating epidemic” of isolation, and a passage questioning why people would want to spend years of their lives “scrolling TikTok and binge-watching Netflix”, the edits show.
The 2026 iteration of the Childnet-run event takes place on Tuesday with more than 2,800 schools and colleges listed as supporters. Childnet, whose core purpose is “helping to make the internet a great and safe place for children”, is one of several internet safety charities part-funded by tech companies.
Childnet denied making edits to keep tech funders happy and insisted it would not stop young people making their points. Aspects of the approved speech did acknowledge that excessive screen time had led to depression and anxiety, and that social media companies should reduce the use of devices such as notifications, autoplay and streaks to prolong user engagement.
But Swire said he had “felt censored” by the charity’s handling of their speeches.
One line cut warned: “Young people are begging for a rope to pull them from the quicksand” and described social media as “one of the worst psychological addictions in history”.
Another was: “Social media companies are in bed with the very same psychology used to exploit gambling victims.” When Swire found out this had been removed at the last minute, he scribbled a similar line back into his speech.
“I was pretty surprised because at this stage I didn’t know there was a conflict of interest with where their funding was coming from,” said Swire, who was at the time a member of Childnet’s youth advisory board. “I felt like we were being censored and almost betrayed by this organisation which we wanted to represent with integrity. It was a pretty difficult experience.”
Ghai, now 16, said: “It was quite shocking because the stuff that they deleted was bringing to light a lot of things that were happening in the industry. It felt hypocritical because they were asking us to speak up against this and then at the same time they watered down what we wanted to say so much.”
Swire said some of the cuts became apparent only in a final paper copy of the speech handed to them shortly before they were due to speak.
Will Gardner, the Childnet chief executive, denied making edits to keep tech funders happy.
“If young people want to make a point we allow them to make a point but there are constraints – not due to who gives us money, there are constraints in the nature of the event that we’re running, and the time constraints,” he said. “We would certainly advise and edit around tone and language but we wouldn’t stop young people making a point.”
He said it was “not true” that edits were made if proposed content could compromise the charity’s relationship with its social media company funders.
“I completely refute that,” he said. “Because we work in the online safety space we do get some funding from tech companies … but that doesn’t compromise our voice.”
Daisy Greenwell, the co-founder of the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, said teenagers “should not be asked to censor themselves to protect the commercial interests of Big Tech”.
“Young people’s voices are often positioned as the moral authority in debates about online safety, but too often those voices are only welcomed when they align with an organisation’s existing policy position,” she said. “When young people are filtered until they echo a pre-approved line, that isn’t participation – it’s cover.”
Harry Amies, the co-founder of Unplug.Scot, a network of parents in Scotland concerned about the impact of screens and educational technology in classrooms, said: “The evidence that Lewis has presented has left us speechless. Most parents across the UK will be shocked to learn that Safer Internet Day is actually funded by Snapchat and other addictive social media platforms.”
Swire, now 19, is campaigning for a social media ban for under-16s. In his original version of his speech, he wrote about a schoolfriend who had told him he felt “terrible” about spending 40 hours a week on social media and wished he could stop, but couldn’t because “I can’t delete TikTok because I make £10 a month on the app. I can’t delete Twitter because that’s where I get my footy news. I can’t remove Snapchat because I’ll lose my streak.” This did not appear in the final speech.
Another cut section mentioned research showing “excessive social media consumption is exacerbating a devastating epidemic of loneliness”.
