The Children’s Phone (BørneTelefonen) is facing criticism for its “Children Help Children” mailbox, where children and young people can anonymously ask questions and answer each other in the “porn” category. Politicians and experts are raising concerns about the lack of age verification and the potential for young children to receive advice from older, anonymous individuals, some as old as 23.
The fact that there are young, anonymous adults in the mailbox between 18 and 23 years old, and that there is no possibility of age verification, is now being criticized by several politicians. Rasmus Lund-Nielsen (M), children’s and digitalization spokesperson, expressed worry that children as young as 10 or 11 are getting advice about porn from individuals up to 23 years old in a mailbox that implies it is children helping children.
According to Danish law, distributing pornography to individuals under 16 is illegal, notes Birgitte Vind, the Social Democrats’ digitalization spokesperson. She expects that recognized organizations should guide children and young people accordingly.
Alexander Ryle (LA), digitalization spokesperson, also voiced concern, stating that it is inappropriate for someone in their 20s to advise a 10-year-old on these topics. All three politicians are members of the Committee for Digitalization and IT in the Parliament (Folketinget).
The Children’s Phone rejects the criticism, asserting that they have positive experiences with older young people sharing respectful perspectives in their answers, which are moderated before publication. The head of the Children’s Phone, Marianne Rasmussen, stated that their counseling services target children and young people up to age 24 and that they do not advise children to watch porn.
Concerns have arisen regarding specific examples of advice given in the mailbox. One instance cited an 11-year-old asking if it is normal to watch porn, and a 23-year-old responding that it is normal to see porn at a young age and be scared, but that it is ultimately “very calm.” Another user, claiming to be 21, told the 11-year-old that sex and porn are normal, and that porn is made by people who want to share what they do online.
Politicians fear that such advice could normalize pornography for children, potentially exposing them to content they are not mature enough to handle. Lund-Nielsen emphasized that “Porn has nothing to do with a child’s life.”
Some critics are calling for clearer regulations and increased control over advice given on sensitive topics, especially given the inability to verify the age of those providing answers. Birgitte Vind believes that if organizations like Children’s Welfare are unsure about the appropriate age limit for pornography when providing counseling, it underscores the need for clearer rules.
Rasmussen acknowledged the need for more regulation in the area, such as age verification. She noted that children are exposed to pornography everywhere, often at ages younger than the legal limit of 16, and that current legislation is not adequately protecting them.
Concerns have also been raised about the lack of professional advice in the “Children Help Children” mailbox. Alexander Ryle described the situation as a “black box” with no transparency regarding who is advising this vulnerable group. He believes that counselors should have a pedagogical or sexological background to ensure quality advice for young children.
The Children’s Phone maintains that children and young people have valuable perspectives to share, even if they differ from those of adults. They argue that offers like “Children Help Children” are popular because it can be easier for young people to confide in their peers, with adult moderation in place.