A British artificial intelligence company founded by one of the architects of fintech unicorn Tide has written to all MPs warning that the political debate over children’s smartphone use has degenerated into a “false choice” between blanket bans and full access.
SafetyMode, the London-based child safety technology company led by Tide founder George Bevis, has used the parliamentary intervention to urge ministers to consider a third way, arguing that on-device technology can give parents meaningful control without completely shutting children out of the digital economy.
The timing is no coincidence. The letter arrives in Westminster mailbags, days after a landmark American court ruling found that several of Silicon Valley’s biggest platforms knowingly developed addictive products aimed at young users, a ruling that has sharpened the appetite of lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic for tougher action.
In the UK, the political mood has changed significantly over the last eighteen months, with cross-party support for tougher restrictions on under-16s increasing. Nevertheless, SafetyMode claims to the MPs that the conversation narrowed prematurely.
“Right now, the entire discussion about social media and phone security seems to act as if all we can do is either open the floodgates completely or ban them completely, thereby eliminating any benefits that these technologies could provide,” the company wrote in its letter, copies of which were seen by Daily Sparkz.
The company, founded by Mr Bevis with Bertie Aspinall and product specialist Dan Barker, has over the past two years developed what it describes as one of the most advanced parental control platforms on the market. Unlike competing products that route children’s data through cloud servers, SafetyMode’s technology runs artificial intelligence directly on the device, filtering harmful content in real time while keeping personal information away from external servers.
The product was developed in collaboration with parenting forum Mumsnet, whose research underpins much of the company’s commercial thesis. More than 90 percent of parents surveyed told Mumsnet that current smartphones are not safe enough for children, while 86 percent expressed concerns about the impact of devices on their child’s mental health and attention span.
Speaking to Daily Sparkz, Mr Bevis said the political class was in danger of resorting to the strongest tool available. “We are at a tipping point in society’s attitudes towards children and smartphones. There is clear agreement that there is a problem, but the solutions being discussed are too narrow. Regulation is important, but it takes time and cannot be the only answer.”
Mr Aspinall, the company’s co-founder, took a more explicit tone. “Courts, governments, schools and parents are all aware of the risks. But the companies behind it won’t fix it themselves. So the question is: What do we do next?”
The company’s technology is designed to read context, not just search for banned keywords. It detects when conversations become offensive, sexualized, or otherwise harmful, even if those exchanges would escape traditional filters.
Currently, SafetyMode is only available on Android phones. The company has been openly critical of Apple, arguing that the Cupertino giant’s restrictions on third-party developers prevented it from introducing meaningful parental controls for iPhone users – a complaint that reflects broader regulatory scrutiny of Apple’s walled garden in Brussels and Washington.
The company’s lobbying work also has an industrial strategic dimension. Positioning the UK as a potential global hub for the so-called “Safe Tech for Kids” movement, SafetyMode argues that ministers could combine child protection with a new wave of innovation, investment and skilled job creation if they choose to support domestic companies to develop protective technologies.
It remains to be seen whether MPs will respond. Pressure from backbenchers to completely restrict the use of social media for under-16s has increased in recent months, and Whitehall has shown limited appetite for technological solutions based on parental engagement. But with American courts now exposing the platform’s behavior in unprecedented detail, taking action seems unstoppable.
The question Mr Bevis and his colleagues are asking Parliament is whether this measure should empower parents or simply slam the door.
