Map the System / 2026

Child Safe Platform.

A systems analysis of why foreseeable harms to children persist online. The project examines how platform design and accountability could shift safety earlier, before harm becomes visible.

Project
Academic research
Canada-focused analysis
Role
Ivan Leung
Report author
Methods
Desk research
Systems analysis
Deliverable
Report, system maps
and priority recommendations

Duty of careby design.

Platform power. Shared responsibility.
Earlier intervention.

01 / The challenge

Risk begins before harm is visible.

The report traces risk to platform design, data practices and engagement incentives. Families, schools and frontline supports often carry the response burden, with limited control over the conditions that created it.

  • ConditionsWhere is risk created?
  • PowerWho can change those conditions?
  • AccountabilityWhy do harms keep recurring?

02 / The system

Responsibility is fragmented.
Power is concentrated.

The system map connects upstream decisions to downstream consequences. The actors managing harm often have the least control over platform design.

Upstream: control over conditionsDownstream: exposure and response
  1. 01 / Control

    Platform companies

    Shape design, data practices and safety settings.

  2. 02 / Conditions

    Platform systems

    Recommendations, defaults and moderation shape exposure.

  3. 03 / Exposure

    Children and youth

    Encounter content, privacy, contact and compulsive-use risks.

  4. 04 / Response

    Families and supports

    Caregivers, schools and frontline workers respond to harm.

Oversight and pressure for change

Regulators, policymakers, researchers and advocacy groups work to make platform decisions more visible and accountable.

Simplified from the report’s system map and composite journey. This describes research patterns, not an individual child’s experience.

03 / Research and sensemaking

From evidence to points for change.

Canada was the focal case, with the UK, EU, U.S. and Australia used as comparators.

  1. Review evidence

    Peer-reviewed studies, regulator guidance, government documents and NGO reports.

  2. Define the system

    Set boundaries and map actors, influence and the distribution of burdens.

  3. Trace the dynamics

    Use a composite journey, iceberg analysis and feedback loops to connect patterns.

  4. Prioritize action

    Compare responses and assess recommendations for likely impact and feasibility.

Desk research only. No direct interviews with children or young people were conducted.

04 / What the research revealed

The conditions that keep harm recurring.

The analysis identifies three reinforcing dynamics beneath visible incidents.

  1. Engagement reinforces growth

    Growth pressure drives attention-focused design. Exposure and data capture reinforce the incentives behind it.

  2. The burden moves downstream

    Families and supports manage visible harm while upstream conditions remain largely unchanged.

  3. Accountability remains weak

    Limited transparency and slow enforcement allow platform conditions to persist despite calls for change.

05 / Opportunities for change

Move accountability upstream.

Three recommendations prioritize prevention, independent scrutiny and safer baseline conditions.

01 / Prevention

Child impact assessments

Assess foreseeable risks before major product or recommendation changes reach children.

Intended effect: earlier scrutiny
02 / Verification

Independent safety audits

Review recommendations, moderation, data practices and complaints beyond platform self-reporting.

Intended effect: outside verification
03 / Safer conditions

Child-centred defaults

Make privacy, contact limits and recommendation settings safer without constant family vigilance.

Intended effect: lower baseline exposure

06 / Design contribution

Making the system easier to examine.

As the report’s author, I brought desk research and systems analysis together in a visual account of platform power, harm and accountability.

The maps, composite journey and prioritization matrix connect the problem’s structure to concrete opportunities for change.

07 / Outcome and reflection

A clearer basis for accountability.

The project produced a report, system maps and prioritized recommendations. It also outlined a Child-Safe Platform Accountability Toolkit as a proposed next stage.

System diagnosis
Maps of actors, power, harms and reinforcing dynamics.
Three priority levers
Impact assessments, independent audits and safer defaults.
Proposed toolkit
An assessment template, audit checklist and school/frontline evidence pathway.

The central lesson: prevention depends on changing the conditions that produce risk, as well as supporting those who experience harm.

Previous

Strategy for Multiple Futures