A recent Indonesian education research project has included oodlü as part of a Smart Box learning resource designed to help primary school students learn about disaster mitigation. The study reported highly positive outcomes, with expert validation rating the media as very feasible and student responses rating it as very practical for classroom use.

Ofcoms latest research says children are still running into harmful content through the way platforms are built. At the same time, new search data suggests AI tools and learning aids are becoming part of childrens everyday internet use. That changes the design question.

A new study from Indonesia shows what happens when you measure what matters. Students using oodlü showed significant increases in learning interest. This is why this research matters.

AI use in classrooms is rising faster than formal guidance, and that leaves a real design question on the table. Should the guardrails live in policy documents, product defaults, or the day-to-day judgement of the adults using the tools?

Last weeks AFT plan, Gallups guidance gap, and the wider screen-time backlash all point in the same direction. The real question is becoming what child-facing products should do by default, and what should require a very deliberate decision to turn back on.

A new review of AI-driven feedback in education points to the samae conclusion many ELA teachers are already reaching in practice. AI can help with routine comments, but the quality, trust, and usefulness of feedback still depend on a teacher reading the work.

AI could transform education. But when 85% of teachers are using tools without proper training, and startups are racing to ship products, who's thinking about the long-term consequences?

AI is already part of daily work in many classrooms, and policy is lagging behind. Adults using AI to plan, prepare, and reduce admin need one set of rules. Children using AI to learn need a stricter one.

AI could unlock developmental opportunities impossible in any other format. But until we're certain it's safe, adults stay in the loop. Always.

Fourteen years. Two platforms. Multiple countries. Countless 3am coding sessions. One question that won't let go: can we build something that genuinely contributes positivlely to the world?

Most platforms optimize for engagement and hope development follows. We started with neuroscience research and built engagement around it. The order matters.

Governments mandate it. Platforms implement it. Children bypass it with a fake moustache drawn in makeup. Maybe we're solving the wrong problem.

When platforms separate real money from in-world currency, they're making it easier for children to spend without understanding what they're spending. There's a better way.

In November 2024, a major platform finally rolled out comprehensive safety updates. Years after parents, advocates, and reporters had been sounding alarms. The timing tells you everything.

Children's dopamine levels are highest in highly engaging digital worlds. Instead of fighting that reality, what if we harnessed it for developmental good?

Sometimes the best thinking happens when you're running 20km through wilderness with nothing but sun and silence. Why building something worth building requires space to think clearly.

Research on medical students shows that actually inhabiting a role creates measurably stronger empathy than just imagining it. That changes how I think about children's time in open worlds.

Built-in parental controls exist on major platforms. Fewer than 1% of parents actually use them. That gap tells you everything about design.

When over 900 variations of "Jeffrey Epstein" are already taken as usernames, you're not looking at a moderation problem. You're looking at an architecture problem.

As parents watching our children spend hours in open worlds, we're building something that respects both the engagement they want and the trust we need.