Best Of

Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.

We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.

Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.

If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.

Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.

Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.

Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.

I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.

I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.

Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.

Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.

(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)

If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?

As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.

And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.

Its a far better parallel than the Guardian which has been used here.

Maybe arguing about which metaphor is better for social media is a bit of a dead end. Social media is neither like old media or a mobile phone company, while it has similarities to both. We should have rules specific for social media.

The more important question is what should those rules be? Do you agree that social media can produce some social ills? What should governments do about that?

Everything produces social ills. The government does nothing about 99% of them because they either don't care or they are working in their favour. That is an argument for shutting down pubs, banning public marches and protests, and prosecuting people just for showing support for those who the gvernment disagrees with.

Actually... maybe you are on to something here given that is exactly what the Government has been trying to do.

Governments regulate most things to stop social ills. We regulate pubs and public marches extensively, and have done so for centuries. Sorry, have you teleported here from some sort of libertarian utopia? (I’m obviously using the original etymology of “utopia”.)

We don't hold pubs responsible for what people say in them. If we did there would be no pubs left - again something that might suit the Government very well. And we already regulate social media. What is being proposed goes way beyond that.

Social media is a…well…media. If I suggest a riot in a pub it won’t go any further unless I’m holding a megaphone and stand by a window. The same cannot be said for Facebook.

Yes, I’m sure like any analogy mine breaks down under any level of scrutiny, but so does yours. But pubs are not media channels.

We regulate what radio stations and television stations can broadcast. Social media channels can’t stop what’s inputted into them but they can control how it is disseminated and to whom. And they should. Like any other media.

It’s why I have no time for the “hurty words on Facebook” narrative. It’s much, much worse to post something inflammatory there than in a drunken rant with your pals in the pub.

Also - I know people take the piss out of Bluesky but the reason it’s so dull is precisely because it doesn’t push dopamine via an algorithm. As a self-diagnosed social media addict, the fact I don’t feel compelled to spend more than 10 minutes there at a time is a good thing.

I’m not sure this ban is the right intervention but there’s no doubt something needs to happen.

'Something must be done... this is something... we must do it!'

This has never been a good argument for new laws.

Agree. Though that can sometimes mean a much more substantial and comprehensive law, rather than a lot of the lightweight kneejerk stuff we get nowadays.

Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.

We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.

Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.

If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.

Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.

Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.

Totally agree - the way policymakers accepted the guff about them not being publishers was also remiss. I appreciate they aren’t a book publisher or even a newspaper publisher - but they are still the gatekeeper on what gets published, and promoted and demoted.

I don't see why they are less responsible for people publishing comments via their sites than a newspaper publishing comments.

I guess it’s not directly equivalent. Newspapers consider what is published whereas social media platforms publish everything automatically.

Here is the heart of the issue. We got off on the wrong foot. From the get go it should have been obvious that internet platforms are publishers with the same duties as Oxford University Press or The Times. They should not be able to claim the defence that they allow any old libellous or illegal rubbish to be posted any more than the Guardian can. Why should they?

If I posted and published random unchecked stuff from any source on my front door, visible to any passer by in a busy street, I could rightly be sued, and if bad enough rightly be visited by the old bill. Why is it any different for those who publish on the internet.

Because it started on the wrong foot it soon became unstoppable.

(I realise of course that PB is just such a site!)

If you use a mobile phone to make a threatening phone call to someone should the mobile phone company be held responsible?

As has been said, that’s a poor parallel.

And while I wouldn’t hold the mobile phone company responsible, I would expect the mobile phone company to be good members of society and engage with the government on what they can do to minimise any harms associated with their product, which they generally do. Compare that to, say, X making underage porn and ignoring multiple governments internationally for weeks.

Given that Bluesky has users on it who openly describe themselves as Minor Attracted Persons ie paedophiles, why is it omitted from the list of banned sites if the protection of children is the concern?

Regarding the proposed social media ban for under 16s...
The devil is naturally in the detail, particularly around enforcement, but the intent is hard to argue with.

Allowing social media companies to optimise children’s attention and emotional development around engagement metrics may prove to be one of the most damaging public policy failures of the early 21st century.

We impose rigorous safety standards on toys, medicines, food, cars, playgrounds and school buildings. We demand evidence, testing, regulation and oversight before exposing children to even relatively minor risks.

Yet somehow we collectively decided it was perfectly reasonable to hand children devices connected to platforms whose business model depends on maximising engagement, harvesting attention and encouraging compulsive use, then act surprised when rates of anxiety, self-harm, sleep deprivation and social dysfunction started moving in the wrong direction.

If a toy manufacturer discovered a mechanism that kept children compulsively pulling a lever hundreds of times a day, we would ban it. If a food company deliberately engineered products to create dependency in children, there would be parliamentary inquiries. Yet when technology companies use behavioural psychology to achieve similar outcomes, we call it innovation.

Whether a ban is practical is a separate question. But the idea that society should simply shrug and accept unlimited access to algorithmically-curated social media for 12 and 13 year-olds has always struck me as one of the stranger orthodoxies of the digital age.

Future generations may look back on it in much the same way we look back on cigarette adverts featuring doctors.

Oh don't be so bloody naive.

This is not about protecting children. It's about controlling access to social media for everyone - every single adult. And abolishing anonymity and privacy for those who use it. It is a profoundly illiberal and authoritarian measure.

This.

1000x this.



Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.

Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.

https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774

Indeed.

He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".

Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.

As someone pointed out to me earlier today Meta are very happy and actively lobbying for age type bans (ideally controlled via mobile phones so Apple / Google take the pain and some of the costs). Because the other option is proper moderation and that would both cost them billions and even their current moderation is sending the poor people who do it mad - as they are required to watch things no-one should see..

Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.

One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.

This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.

Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.

Went looking for stats on child suicides which is a lot harder to find than I expected.

One very surprising stat I found from the ONS study a couple of years ago was that teenagers with parents who have a degree are 1.7x more likely to commit suicide than those whose parents do not.

This is absolutely not me trying whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the social media debate in my view but I post it as I found it a surprising stat. Not sure why it should be the case.

Held to higher expectations? More likely to feel like a failure? Higher 'inescapable' debt at a young age? As some armchair psychologist total guesses.

Childhood suicide is higher in US counties with more poverty (but that could be the ecological fallacy): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2759427

The son of a friend of mine committed suicide at the age of 23 for reasons i don't know.

My friend is now leading a national campaign to encourage anyone with suicidal thoughts to talk about them and get help.

His petition for a campaign to reduce the stigma of suicide and encourage people to talk about it and seek help is here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/768225

This.

1000x this.



Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.

Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.

https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774

Indeed.

He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".

Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.

He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?

Aside from the timing, the social media ban is not about Starmer's legacy. The idea has been kicking around for years – the Conservatives gave us the Online Safety Act and Labour's manifesto said it would build on that. It polls well – the idea is popular but the correct mechanism is not obvious.

ETA I see bondegezou has made a similar point.

Oh really?

I am struggling to find any reference to social media in the King's Speech, only last month. Can you?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2026

One frigging month ago this was not on the agenda for the year ahead. Now suddenly its a priority.

Bullshit. This is "legacy" hunting and nothing else.

This.

1000x this.



Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
I say this as a parent who is genuinely in two minds on a social media ban because the risks to our kids are clear but the solutions aren't.

Starmer's announcement is clearly a knee jerk attempt to do something popular as his authority crumbles. That's a dangerous background for making new laws.

https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/2066420103818653774

Indeed.

He is not doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he is doing something, anything quick and easy he can do that he can point to as a "legacy".

Whether its a good idea, thought through, principled or anything else is very much a tertiary concern.

He won a massive majority to help drive the golden age of Burnham, is that not legacy enough?

Aside from the timing, the social media ban is not about Starmer's legacy. The idea has been kicking around for years – the Conservatives gave us the Online Safety Act and Labour's manifesto said it would build on that. It polls well – the idea is popular but the correct mechanism is not obvious.

ETA I see bondegezou has made a similar point.