Is a social media ban for under-16s the right move?
The next few months could result in significant changes to the digital lives of children and young people in the UK.
The government is planning to consult on proposals that include raising the age of digital consent to 16 and banning social media for under-16s.
The Conservatives are advocating for a ban. Liberal Democrat peers have backed the principle of a social media ban put forward as an amendment to the Children’s Schools and Wellbeing Bill.
Parents are exhausted by the challenges of digital parenting, worried about the harms and ready for something radical to change. Teachers and other professionals tell us they are fed up with dealing with the problems that come to them as a result of what happens online.
It seems inevitable that something will be done to respond to this cacophony of concern.
The question is, what the ‘something’ should be.
Unfortunately, the Online Safety Act (OSA) is not cutting through to families. In part that is a failure of communication.
The problems and harms are understandably more in focus than the emerging solutions and changes. But there have been wins and it’s important to talk about those.
All 10 of the top most visited porn sites now have highly effective age assurance measures in place. Ofcom has launched investigations into companies that are non-compliant.
Our latest Parent Zone research into user empowerment tools – due for release in the spring – indicates not just an increase in the number of user empowerment tools, but importantly, significant improvements in their usability. They are easier to set up than they were, partly because many of them are now deployed by default.
Perhaps these are baby steps, but with a complex piece of legislation we were never going to see total overnight success. The next steps Ofcom takes to enforce the OSA are going to be critical. If they continue to be “timid” – as Baroness Beeban Kidron described them in her recent speech to the House of Lords – and if campaigners and policy makers continue to point to the many flaws in the OSA, the decline in confidence will continue.
Right now, parents want a ban.
However, that tempting and seemingly decisive measure would come with a cost.
Firstly, it is important that any decision made is evidence-based and informed by technology experts.
On Radio 4, Professor Amy Orben from the University of Cambridge, who sits on the Advisory Committee of the Australian eSafety Commissioner Social Media Ban Evaluation, recently underlined the critical importance of waiting to see what the effects of the ban in Australia are first. Results she believes will come within the year.
To commit to a ban blindly without any evidence could mean more ineffective policy and wasted time. Professor Orben explained that it is incredibly hard to predict an outcome given the world-first nature of the Australian policy and the lack of scientific studies done in its preparation to gauge potential success.
Coupled with a lack of high quality scientific studies on the effects of removing social media, to be so close to some concrete data and press forward regardless seems mistaken.
Then – and in no particular order – there is a live risk that a ban on social media would result in challenges from tech companies on the basis of proportionality. They will make the case that asking them to spend millions on building safer experiences and complying with the existing law when the rules are in flux is unreasonable and not proportionate.
Agree or disagree, the likelihood is that a major pivot to a ban would cause delay in implementation and compliance. It would set back the progress that has been made.
Leading academics including Professor Sonia Livingstone have outlined serious reasons for not rushing to ban social media.
They point to the opportunity cost and the risk that children will be pushed to even less safe parts of the internet. We agree. We also recognise that parents don’t care about that. They want their children to be safe and to have their childhood back. It’s a difficult square to circle.
Questions we are asking
As the government’s national conversation on this gets underway we have questions of our own.
1. How do we reassure parents that change isn’t just coming – but that it has started?
It might not feel dramatic enough and Ofcom certainly are being tepid in their enforcement so far, but there have been successes and slowing things down again is not going to help.
2. When will we stop ignoring parents (until they get so angry the crescendo of frustration reaches MPs and we end up with demand for a solution most experts know is unlikely to work)?
Parents must have a way to intervene on behalf of their children. They need an ombudsman or equivalent because the complex ‘super complainant’ provision in the OSA isn’t quick enough or clear enough.
3. How quickly can we move to make sure the smaller, most harmful sites are category 1 services (and therefore required to follow all of the requirements of the act)?
When the online safety act was passed, policy makers were so obsessed with dealing with ‘Big Tech’ they skewed the entire regime in that direction by focusing on the number of users. That entirely overlooked the reality that small platforms were often the most problematic. They also ignored the App Stores and gaming. It became a user to user content regime despite what might have been intended. Functionality and safety by design is more important and we need to focus on that quickly and in meaningful ways.
4. In an age of AI, with wearable technology coming onto the market at speed, how do we avoid heading down a rabbit hole?
One that will see us missing the tsunami of harms that will follow once form and function align in ‘always on’, wearable devices?
5. How can we ensure that the debate is well informed by technology experts in a field that has become so polarised and so contested?
As the walls grow ever higher it’s difficult to find bridges that build better understanding and better informed solutions.
6. Are we brave enough to make the sort of serious changes that will give parents what they need in a way that is futureproof and meaningful?
Parent Zone would like to see a duty of care that matches the safeguarding duty other professionals have when they are responsible for minors. We’ve called for professional standards for developers that mirror the kind of professional standards other engineers have to adhere to. If a gas engineer has to follow detailed safety principles, why can’t software engineers?
7. Finally, are we patient enough to wait for the evidence?
At Parent Zone, we’ve always been evidence-led. Given the magnitude of the decision and prospect of valuable data on the horizon, do we have the patience to hold on in order to create the most effective solution possible?
As an organisation that warned that the Online Safety Act wasn’t going to cut the mustard for parents, we remain deeply committed to making it work.
It’s not the bill we wanted and it’s not perfect – but it’s what we have and the job now is to improve it and make sure it’s effective.
If we don’t we’ll go back to a drawing board, that will ultimately fail parents, fail families, and leave children at risk for longer than necessary.