Great question;

I can't help that think that ultimately the internet is having a negative influence on children. The history of child-rearing is littered with examples of protectionism. Parents are the arbiters of their child's experience, the internet has completely and almost instantaneously eroded this. There are so many different levels this operates at. Of course, there are benefits that arise from communication and connection that stem from internet use. I think on balance it's a doing harm though.

There are benefits that coming from being able to delay gratification. it's a bargaining with suffering that allows us to learn routine and time management, it's the role of the parents to tailor this delay so as to produce productive children. The internet erodes the ability of parents to install this lesson, it's much harder to restrict internet than it is to stop children from playing outside. This represents a new autonomy in the development of children that when looked at with a consideration of the reality of the internet that appears quite dangerous. To me, it's more about disrupting the learning development of children and exposing them to advertisement and media from such a young age that worries me.

Children are being exposed to targeted advertisement is a new way, the TV was the first step in this direction but there's something more sinister about putting TV's in the hands of every child. It's an undermining of the authority of the parents, it's a big deal. Play a child's application game on any phone, you'll be disgusted by the frequency of targeted advertisement.

Peers have an absolutely immeasurable impact on children and their social development - we've always been cautious about the friend's groups our children make. It's a common trope, parents endlessly fretting about a bad actor the apple of their eye has befriended. Move this to the potential to connect with Billions of people with varying intentions.