Sir Keir Starmer’s social media ban has been criticised as a “missed opportunity” that risks driving young people into “darker places” online while failing to stand up to big tech companies.
The decision to crack down on children’s access to features including livestreaming and connecting with strangers online has broadly been welcomed as “positive” steps for children’s safety. But campaigners and MPs warned the changes could push children into unregulated online spaces, while giving social media companies a “free pass”.
The prime minister announced sweeping reforms on Monday that will see under-16s barred from platforms including TikTok and Snapchat from as early as next spring.
The changes will mean children under 16 years old will not be allowed to join user-to-user platforms, livestream from their accounts, or speak to people they don’t know. AI chatbots designed to simulate romantic or sexual relationships will also be made to enforce a minimum age of 18.
Ministers said they will also be looking in more detail at taking on a broader set of measures for under-18s, including overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling.
The reforms have been welcomed children’s charity the NSPCC, who described the ban as “a win for children and parents and all of us who have campaigned for better child protection online”.
But other campaigners have accused the government of producing a “rush job” ahead of the by-election in Makerfield, which could decide the prime minister’s future.
Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly Russell took her own life after accessing harmful content online, warned the government should look at “banning the sort of algorithms that recommended harmful content” to Molly.
“They’re still there, they’re still doing that,” he told Good Morning Britain, adding social media has benefits for young people as well has harms. “I can’t help but think this is just a rush job,” he added.
Members of the prime minister’s own party also shared their concerns over the ban. Josh Dean, one of the party’s youngest MPs at 26, told the Independent he believes the ban risks becoming a “missed opportunity” to “reset young people’s relationships to social media and build a safer digital world”.
“I am one of the few MPs that grew up with social media, so I don't deny at all that there is a problem and the government does need to take action,” he said. “My concern is whether a blanket ban, particularly one that takes a platform, and age-based approach, is going to be the most effective.
“The vast, vast majority of parliamentarians have lived in a world with social media and they've lived in a world without it,” he continued. “They can remember a time before it. These young people just do not have that benefit. They have grown up with their lives intertwined with it, and they're going to try and find ways back online, not because they're badly behaved, but because it's the world we've raised them in. It's all that they know.”
Mr Dean said he is worried banning young people from social media will encourage “poorly regulated alternatives” to pop up. “Young people are going to find a way online, we know that,” he said. “So my worry is that the end result is that they're on less safe platforms, and it's actually easier for the threats to reach them.”
He added he is also worried young people from marginalised communities including those who are LGBT+ risk having the “rug pulled from underneath them” and being left with little support.
“Too often in this debate, the fact that social media isn't exclusively harmful to young people has been lost,” he said. “Quite often these platforms give you a space to build genuinely beneficial support networks and understand your identity.”
Concerns about tensions between the ban and the government’s decision to extend the vote to 16-year-olds have also flared. Fact-checking charity Full Fact criticised the government’s decision as a “de facto surrender in the fight against harmful online misinformation” that “gives social media companies a free pass”.
Head of public affairs Mark Frankel said: “If the government is serious about extending participation in our democratic process to 16 and 17-year-olds, restricting their access to these platforms is unlikely to help them become better informed.
“Far from protecting young people from online harms, this ban fails to address current weaknesses in online safety legislation and gives social media companies a free pass.”
Scotland's Children's Commissioner Nicola Killean also said she was disappointed with a ban and has warned of a "real risk" of youngsters being "driven to darker places on the internet".
She argued that the evidence does not show that banning children from social media will make them safer online and the government statement "spoke to adults only, not to the children and young people who will be most affected by these decisions".
Her counterpart in England Dame Rachel de Souza said while the ban is “positive”, the debate must be reset “from banning children to banning the companies who fail to show that their services protect children’s safety and wellbeing”.
Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, warned the ban could push children into unregulated spaces online but said it would “continue to engage with the government and Ofcom” to implement the policy.
The government has been approached for comment.
Read MoreThe unearthed social media posts from Reform’s Makerfield candidate
