MPs rejected a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media for the second time. This happened as the prime minister called tech bosses to demand stronger action on internet safety. The House of Commons supported the government against a Lords amendment to the children’s wellbeing & schools bill.
The amendment would have imposed a new age limit on using social media platforms. Parents & campaign groups had been pushing for faster action to tackle online harms. MPs voted 256 to 150 against the change to the bill. The change was brought by Conservative peer Lord Nash. His amendment tried to create a default ban and give ministers 12 months to decide which platforms should be blocked.
The government is moving forward with its own consultation about an under-16s ban & possible restrictions on social media platforms. The consultation closes next month. Olivia Bailey is the government’s early education minister. She said their consultation allows them to address a much wider range of services & features than the narrow amendment proposed in the House of Lords.
She added that it lets them consider different views about how to move forward. That is why it is important not to pre-empt the government’s consultation. Laura Trott is the Conservative shadow education secretary. She said she will keep fighting until the government offers a ban on social media in the bill itself. MPs first voted last month to reject the Nash amendment.
They chose a more flexible power to introduce social media curbs instead. The Lords then insisted on keeping the default ban in the bill. But MPs have again backed the government’s position as part of the process to agree on the final wording of the bill. The government consultation is looking at raising the age limit on social media from 13 to 16. It is also examining ways to address the addictive nature of social media platforms by restricting features like infinite scrolling.
Keir Starmer is preparing to meet senior leaders at social media companies. These include TikTok and X & YouTube and Snapchat and Meta. Meta owns Instagram and Facebook. He wants to demand faster progress on internet safety. Starmer spoke before the meeting scheduled for Thursday. He said parents rightly expect action & they expect it fast. He added that the government has already taken the powers needed to move quickly once the consultation ends. He will take whatever steps necessary to keep children safe online. The meeting is about making sure social media companies step up and take responsibility.
The Molly Rose Foundation is an internet safety charity. It said the solution is not a ban but a commitment to strengthening the Online Safety Act. Andy Burrows is the chief executive of the foundation. He said it is time to look beyond this false sense of safety. The prime minister needs to decisively commit to strengthening regulation to make unsafe & addictive design a thing of the past.
Bereaved parents and campaigners delivered a letter to the prime minister at Downing Street before the vote. They urged the government to restrict social media access for under-16s and introduce a ban on phones in schools. They also want to prohibit addictive social media features like infinite scrolling and auto-play. Esther Ghey is the mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey.
She said the government consultation is delaying action against online harms. She pointed out that everyone knows social media is addictive and knows about the things young people are accessing online. Young people are losing their lives. Tech companies have billions of pounds and while this consultation is running they will be putting money into lobbying the government. She really hopes they listen to other parents. Ghey added that Brianna was extremely isolated because of the people she was talking to online and the people who were doing her harm.
One argument against the social media ban is that vulnerable youth find their community online. This includes LGBT youth in particular. But Brianna did not find that community. They have an LGBT youth support group. Brianna went there a couple of times and refused to engage. Then she went back home and on to her phone. She went back to the people who were doing her harm in the first place. Ghey thinks that if Brianna was not on social media she would have engaged far more in the real world.
10 Quiet Acts of Kindness at Workplace That Prove Optimism and Compassion Change Everything
That would have done her mental health wonders. Stuart Stephens is the father of 13-year-old Olly Stephens. He said there needs to be some kind of accountability for what they are doing to our children. In January 2021 his son was lured to a field by a girl & fatally stabbed by two boys. He said they were very naive and believed these companies had a duty of care. He does not think any child should be on social media under the age of 16 because their brains are not fully developed enough to deal with that.
Louise Gibson lost her 11-year-old son Noah in December 2 They’ve021 to what she thinks was a social media challenge. She said she stayed hopeful that the Lords’ amendments would be accepted.
Ellen Roome is working with Gibson and three other parents to sue TikTok in Delaware following their children’s deaths. She said that her son Jools died four years ago this week & she thinks social media was responsible. It feels like progress is being made and things are moving in the right direction. She added that the government needs to catch up with what is happening.
Technology companies have had opportunities to make real changes but they have not done enough. The government now needs to step in and take control of the situation. We want to ask you for a small favor. Tens of millions of people have trusted the Guardian’s journalism since we began publishing more than 200 years ago.
They have turned to us during times of crisis and uncertainty as well as moments of solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million supporters from 180 countries now provide us with financial backing. This keeps us open to everyone and completely independent. Will you help support us as well? The Guardian is different from many other news organizations because we have no shareholders and no billionaire owner.
We only have the determination & passion to deliver important global reporting that is always free from commercial or political influence. This kind of reporting is essential for democracy and fairness and to hold the powerful accountable We provide all of this content for free so everyone can read it. We do this because we believe everyone should have equal access to information. More people can then follow global events that shape our world & understand how these events affect people & communities.
This can inspire them to take meaningful action. Millions of people can benefit from having access to quality & truthful news regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it. Your financial support will power our reporting for years to come whether you give a little or a lot.
