'Social media ban fails to hold big tech to account, while making Starmer a dad of the people'

'Social media ban fails to hold big tech to account, while making Starmer a dad of the people' "The PM’s speech set out social media measures as decisive action backed by nine in ten parents... I know parents want change. But is this the right move?" Hats off to Keir Starmer for the performance of his career. His heartfelt speech today announcing a ban on social media for under 16s was emotive, persuasive and compelling. It’s just a shame that despite the points he raised sounding like sense, I just don’t think this is the outcome we need as a society. Starmer announced the measures as ‘Australia+’, in reference to the ban which was imposed down under at the start of the year. It’s a good job they included the ‘+’ as the ban in Oz has been notoriously difficult to enforce and experts in online and child safety have not crowned it a raging success. The plans, which the PM said would be rolled out in spring next year, include blocking children from platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. If I was to reflect on the positives, I can see that while a ban will potentially be a painful transition for families with tweens and teens using social media, those with younger children may now have greater opportunity for education around digital literacy, how to behave online, respect and consent. But there has to be a government commitment to invest in these areas. Starmer also pledged there will be some restrictions on tech functionalities for 16 and 17-year-olds to prevent a ‘cliff-edge’ scenario. And there are plans for overnight curfews and to tackle infinite scrolling for under 18s, with more details due to be released next month. Actually, this all sounds lovely doesn’t it? When the dad-of-the people speech was delivered it included a tender reflection on how Starmer and all parents just want their children to be happy and safe. The messaging and its delivery would make any listener feel a little bit warm, fuzzy and hopeful. So, is it an ironic juxtaposition that within minutes of his speech being broadcast, a video of the PM dressed down in a hoodie to announce the plans, was released under his profile on X? This move was no surprise; X is the same platform where the PM has broken many announcements in the past couple of years. It is also the platform that in summer 2024 was blamed for stoking the riots which swept the UK. And the platform that in January 2025 saw Labour’s Jess Phillips, then Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, receive significant death and rape threats following a tweet by the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, branding her a “rape genocide apologist”. And the same platform that this year only removed the ability for its chatbot Grok to undress people - namely women and girls - when the UK threatened to ban it entirely. I’m so pleased that when my daughter turns 16 she too will be able to take to X to see the PM’s latest announcements, along with all of the simmering poison, misogyny, abuse and rage that pollutes the platform every minute of the day. And this brings me to the problem... Nowhere in today’s announcement is there real mention of putting real pressure on platforms to make them safer for everyone. To be frank, there is nothing in the measures which pledge to hold platforms to account over safeguarding other than penalising them if they do not enforce an age block. In Australia children have navigated around the ban through a variety of methods. So if kids in the UK are exposed to horrors on banned social media through their own sidestepping of the rules, as long as the platforms are doing their bit to verify age then it’s not really their problem. When considering it in this light, it might even be suggested that a ban is a solution which will suit the social media moguls rather than properly protect anyone online. The second real issue is the platforms covered by the ban. Encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal, for example, will not be included. Ministers say they will roll out enforcement to prevent kids from live streaming and to stop strangers from interacting with children on all platforms, not just those covered by the ban. But with disappearing message functions, access to large chat groups and the secrecy built into these apps, making such measures work will be no mean feat. And then YouTube will be included in the ban, which will probably have a lot of parents cheering. But what about schools who have all their educational resources on YouTube? Maybe they will be exempt and school pupils will still be able to access the platform for those purposes. But then does that mean they can watch YouTube on their school devices? Either way, it doesn’t solve the issue for educators and might create a whole lot more work when what schools need is support. I understand we have to start somewhere. But if we reflect on the Online Safety Act and how it has not been fit for purpose in terms of protecting women and girls online (despite ministers claiming otherwise), I can’t help but feel we are going about things the wrong way. Surely we should be pressuring platforms to implement safety by design for all? Experts have been raising concerns about the potential consequences of a ban for months. And meanwhile, the likes of newly anointed trillionaire Elon Musk and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg will continue to get away with leading services which fail to put safety into their design for all users, meaning as soon as our kids turn sweet 16 they can legally step into the murky waters of social media and AI without much of a lifebelt to help them swim.