A recent proposal put forth by Lord Nash, a former Conservative education minister, seeks to impose a “blanket ban” on social media access for children under the age of 16. This initiative has ignited a contentious debate among political factions, particularly between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, regarding the best approach to safeguarding children in the digital age.
Lord Nash’s plan is almost identical to the measures that have been proposed by the Australian government. Specifically, they have required social media companies—specifically large platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, X, and TikTok—to take “reasonable steps” to protect children from accessing their services. If elected, the Conservative Party plans to adopt a similar strategy in the UK, aiming to restrict under-16s from social media.
In response, Victoria Collins, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson for science and technology, criticized the proposal as a “blunt instrument that doesn’t work in a digital age.” She emphasized the necessity of a more comprehensive strategy. This is critical to address the nuances of young people’s social media use.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment with a better solution to create film-style age ratings for social media apps. Their proposal limits platforms based on their adoption of addictive algorithms or possession of harmful content. Only people ages 16 and older are allowed to visit these locations. For example, sites with “graphic violence or pornography” would be given an 18-plus rating.
Collins remarked, “action is needed but a complex problem requires more than a blanket solution. Bans are not the answer.” Several other organizations, such as the NSPCC, support these concerns. Their message, simply put, is that if adolescents go off social media, they’ll just migrate to much more unsafe and private communication channels.
Now even the UK’s new Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has indicated that a social media ban for under 16s might be on the cards. He signaled that “everything’s on the table.” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch supported a restrictive approach, asserting that “the internet is a Wild West, social media in particular, we don’t want children to be on there.”
The Liberal Democrats’ plan aims to offer a “tailored approach,” enabling governments to swiftly categorize emerging social media platforms based on their addictiveness or potential harm. Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey reinforced this commitment, stating:
“Our message to social media giants is clear: if your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children.”
This ongoing fight is at the center of deepening concerns about child safety online. Other advocates warn against restricting children from fruitful online engagements. They caution that this may push them onto unregulated platforms, and the discussion continues to develop. The Molly Rose Foundation joined in that same sentiment, arguing that enforcement actions would eventually “drive harm to unregulated spaces.”
In response to the Australian ban Snapchat acknowledged the ban and pledged to cooperate but warned of likely difficulty in complying. The platform features default privacy settings for teen accounts. The law limits public accounts to users aged 16 and up. A Department of Transportation spokesperson told the Implementation upending teens’ social networks isn’t the best way to keep them safe. In reality, it could drive them into more dangerous decisions.
As discussions unfold among policymakers and stakeholders, it remains to be seen how the UK will navigate the complex landscape of social media regulation for its younger population. These differing points of view highlight the difficulties involved in managing child safety with the benefits made possible by the opportunities brought on by digital connectivity.
