Neal Mohan runs the world’s largest video platform. More than two billion people use YouTube every month, with 500 hours of content uploaded every minute. As the company’s chief executive, Mohan oversees a service that has become central to how billions of people, especially young people consume media and culture.
But at home, Mohan takes a different approach.
The executive, recently named TIME magazine’s 2025 CEO of the Year, revealed this week that he and his wife place “controlled and restricted” limits on their three children’s access to YouTube and other platforms. The rules are stricter on weekdays and more relaxed on weekends. “We’re not perfect by any stretch,” Mohan admitted in an interview with TIME, stressing that “everything in moderation” guides their household approach.
The revelation places Mohan in a growing line of technology executives who publicly champion the benefits of their platforms whilst privately constraining how their own children use them. It’s a pattern that raises an uncomfortable question for parents: if the people building these products won’t let their own children use them freely, what does that tell us?
A Pattern Among Tech Leaders
Mohan’s predecessor at YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, took a similar stance during her tenure. She barred her children from the main YouTube app, allowing only YouTube Kids under strict time limits. In a 2019 interview with CNBC, Wojcicki explained: “I allow my younger kids to use YouTube Kids, but I limit the amount of time that they’re on it. I think too much of anything is not a good thing.”
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates went further. He didn’t allow his children to have mobile phones until age 14, imposed evening cutoffs, and banned devices at the dinner table. Gates later said he had seen one child become “unhealthily” attached to a video game, which hardened his stance on technology limits.
Reports over the years have detailed how Apple co-founder Steve Jobs restricted iPad use at home, despite leading the company that created the device. Businessman Mark Cuban has spoken about closely monitoring his children’s app use and shutting off access when needed.
The common thread? Many of the individuals who design, build, and profit from social media platforms and consumer technology exercise far more control over their own children’s access than the products themselves require or than most parents implement.
Timing and Context
Mohan’s comments come at a particularly significant moment. Just days ago, Australia became the first country to enforce a nationwide ban on social media for children under 16. The law, which took effect on 10 December 2025, requires platforms including YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, and Reddit to prevent under-16s from holding accounts or face fines up to $32 million.
The Australian government cited cyberbullying, mental health issues, and exposure to predators and harmful content as justification for the ban. Initial reports suggest platforms have begun removing accounts, with over one million under-16 accounts deactivated in the first days.
Other countries are watching closely. Denmark has announced plans to ban social media for users under 15, though with provisions allowing parental consent from age 13. Malaysia, Norway, and several European nations are considering similar measures.
In the United States, where federal action has stalled despite renewed congressional interest, some states have moved forward with age verification requirements, data privacy protections, and restrictions on certain features for young users.
The Research Picture
The concerns driving these policy changes are backed by a growing body of research examining how social media and smartphone use affect young people’s wellbeing.
A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics analysed data from more than 10,000 adolescents in the United States and found that owning a smartphone by age 12 was associated with increased risks of depression, anxiety, insufficient sleep, and obesity. The median age children in the study received their first smartphone was 11 years old.
Lead researcher Ran Barzilay, a child psychiatrist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, emphasised that the study didn’t even examine what children did on their phones. “We basically asked one simple question: does the mere factor of having one’s own smartphone at this age range have anything to do with health outcomes?” he told CBS News. The answer, according to the data, was yes.
A separate longitudinal study in JAMA Network Open found that more time on social media during early adolescence was associated with increased depressive symptoms over time. Survey data from Pew Research Center show that 22% of US teens who worry about youth mental health name social media as the main factor.
European data from the World Health Organisation found that more than one in ten adolescents show signs of problematic social media behaviour, such as struggling to control usage and suffering negative consequences. Those heavy users were more likely to report lower wellbeing, substance use, poor sleep, and later bedtimes.
The Expert View
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University and author of “The Anxious Generation,” has become one of the most prominent voices arguing for delayed access to smartphones and social media. He recommends children should not have smartphones until age 14 and should avoid social media until at least 16.
“Let them have a flip phone,” Haidt told CNBC earlier this year, “but remember, a smartphone isn’t really a phone. They could make phone calls on it, but it’s a multi-purpose device by which the world can get to your children.”
Haidt’s position has resonated with many parents who feel overwhelmed by the challenge of managing their children’s technology use. His book and advocacy have contributed to a growing grassroots movement of parents agreeing collectively to delay smartphones and social media access for their children, with the goal of reducing peer pressure on individual families.
The Platform Response
In his interview with TIME, Mohan stressed that he feels a “paramount responsibility” to young people and giving parents greater control over how their children use YouTube. He described his role as making it “easy for all parents” to manage their children’s YouTube use “in a way that is suitable to their household,” acknowledging that every parent has a different approach.
YouTube Kids, launched in 2015, represents the platform’s main offering for younger viewers, with content curated for children and parental controls built in. More recently, YouTube has introduced supervised account settings designed to keep younger viewers in more controlled environments.
Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, has gradually rolled out “Teen Accounts” with built-in protections and parental controls. In October 2025, the company announced that teens on Instagram would only be shown content rated similar to PG-13 films, though independent research has questioned the effectiveness of these protections.
The Paradox for Parents
For parents, the disconnect between tech executives’ private practices and public products creates a challenging dynamic. If YouTube’s CEO limits his own children’s time on the platform he runs, should other parents do the same? If Bill Gates didn’t give his children phones until age 14, is it reasonable for most families to delay similarly?
The difficulty is that these executives often have resources unavailable to typical families. They may have partners who don’t work or have flexible schedules. They can afford alternative childcare arrangements. Their children attend schools where delayed phone ownership is more socially accepted. They live in communities where collective agreements amongst parents are easier to coordinate.
For a working single parent using public transport, or a family where both parents work shift patterns, a smartphone may serve as a crucial safety tool. For children in rural areas with limited after-school activities, social media may provide important social connections. For LGBTQ+ teens or neurodivergent young people, online communities can offer support unavailable in their immediate physical environment.
The Australian ban has drawn criticism from groups including Amnesty International and UNICEF, who argue that blanket age restrictions don’t address the root problems with platform design and may even drive young people to less regulated, less safe corners of the internet. They contend that the focus should be on requiring platforms to redesign their products to be safe for all users, rather than simply excluding younger people.
What Parents Are Actually Doing
Recent survey data from Pew Research Center provides insight into how families are currently managing technology access. The research, conducted in May 2025 with over 3,000 parents of children ages 12 and younger, found:
- About one in four parents say their child has a smartphone of their own
- Among parents who have given their child a smartphone, 81% did so by age 12
- Roughly six in ten parents of 11- or 12-year-olds say their child has their own smartphone
- 15% of parents say their child was the primary or sole user of a smartphone by age 5
The most cited reason for giving children phones is so parents can stay in contact with them. This practical consideration often overrides concerns about social media access or screen time.
Daily YouTube viewing among young children has increased notably since 2020. Parents of children under age 2 are now 46% more likely to report daily YouTube viewing compared to five years ago (35% versus 24%). For ages 2-4, daily use rose from 38% to 51%.
The Options Between Extremes
As families navigate these challenges, several approaches have emerged between the extremes of complete smartphone access and total prohibition:
“Dumb phones” or basic devices that allow calls and texts but not social media browsing have seen increased sales, particularly among younger adults reconsidering their own smartphone dependence.
Smartwatches designed for children allow calling, texting, and location tracking without providing access to social media or unrestricted internet browsing.
Family devices that don’t officially belong to the child but can be taken for specific activities provide connectivity whilst maintaining parental control.
Some schools have introduced phone-free policies, requiring students to store devices in lockers or pouches during school hours. Initial reports from these programmes suggest improvements in student focus and social interaction, though implementation varies widely.
The Broader Questions
The revelation that technology executives limit their own children’s access to the products they create highlights several uncomfortable truths about the digital environment we’ve built.
First, that those with the deepest understanding of how these platforms work—their design, their algorithms, their business models, their effects—choose to protect their own families from unrestricted access suggests these products may not be as benign as their public messaging implies.
Second, that platform safety features, whilst marketed as comprehensive solutions, appear insufficient in the eyes of the executives whose companies built them. If YouTube Kids and supervised accounts were truly adequate safeguards, would YouTube’s CEO still feel the need to impose his own limits on his children’s viewing?
Third, that the burden of managing children’s technology use falls almost entirely on individual parents, despite the immense resources and sophisticated engineering devoted to making these platforms as engaging as possible to young users. As one critic put it: parents are being asked to monitor platforms they didn’t design, police algorithms they can’t see, and manage dozens of apps around the clock.
No Simple Answers
Mohan’s acknowledgement that he and his wife are “not perfect by any stretch” in managing their children’s technology use reflects the reality that most parents face. There are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs and compromises that vary by family circumstance, child temperament, and available alternatives.
What’s clear is that the decisions tech executives make for their own families—delaying smartphones, limiting social media, imposing screen time rules, requiring device-free family time—differ markedly from what their platforms require or encourage for the general population.
Whether that gap represents wise personal parenting, privileged circumstances, insider knowledge about product risks, or all three remains a question each family must answer for themselves. But the pattern is striking: those who build our digital world are notably cautious about how much of it they allow into their own homes.
Sources:
TIME Magazine:
- CEO of the Year profile: https://time.com/7338621/ceo-of-the-year-2025-neal-mohan/
- CEO discussion on YouTube’s role: https://time.com/7337793/ceo-of-the-year-neal-mohan-youtube-politics-creators-kids-future/
CNBC:
- Main story (tech executives limiting children’s access): https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/13/youtubes-ceo-is-latest-tech-boss-limiting-his-kids-social-media-use.html
- Australia ban coverage: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/australia-16-year-old-teens-ban-social-media-policy-law-ig-tiktok-fb-reddit-youtube-snapchat.html
Academic Research:
- Pediatrics study (smartphone ownership, 10,000+ adolescents): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/children-smartphones-increased-risk-of-health-problems-study/
- JAMA Network Open (longitudinal study referenced): https://www.thestreet.com/health/youtubes-ceo-caps-his-kids-screen-time-heres-why
- World Health Organisation European adolescent data (referenced in TheStreet analysis)
Pew Research Center:
- 2025 findings including YouTube usage data: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/09/striking-findings-from-2025/
- Overall parenting and tech report: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/
International Organizations:
- Amnesty International statement on Australia ban: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/12/australia-social-media-ban-for-children-and-young-people-an-ineffective-quick-fix-that-will-not-prevent-online-harms/
- UNICEF/UN News statement: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/12/1166557
- ECPAT International statement: https://ecpat.org/ecpat-international-statement-on-social-media-bans-for-children/
Policy Analysis:
- Brookings Institution analysis: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-will-bans-on-social-media-affect-children/
