In the latest attempt to reboot its fading political fortunes, the British government is pinning its hopes on a social media ban for children. Its political rationale is understandable. The public and media love the idea.
British doctors warn that social media is addictive; child psychologist Emily Sehmer claims it is even more dangerous than smoking because “with smoking, the effects tend to be longer, more insidious over time, whereas with social media it only takes five seconds to be shown a traumatizing video.” Former Labour Health Minister Wes Streeting, who soon may mount a challenge to become Prime Minister, warns that“social media should be treated like tobacco — it’s extremely addictive, bad for our health, and big tech is borrowing the big tobacco playbook to avoid regulation.”
But with a draft law set to come as early as this month, the UK government still confronts hard policy questions. A ban will be difficult to implement. And if the real goal is to encourage companies to reform, not to eradicate social media, the government must urgently come up with concrete proposals.
So far, the authorities have failed to articulate a clear and coherent theory of social media’s smoking-like dangers. Are they targeting widespread harmful online content? Addictive design? Or second-order impacts on teenagers’ psychological and social development?
Those questions matter. Each pertains to different types of online services, which require different policy responses. A focus on addictive design might well pull in gaming services and instant messaging. If the target is harmful content, then why not explore measures that require strengthened recommender systems and granular user controls, rather than blunt bans?
A social media ban can be deployed as either an end in itself or as a means to an end. Australia has pioneered the ban as an end in itself. Under Canberra’s rulebook, any social media platform is automatically banned for under-16s. Social media platforms can take no safety measures to escape the ban.
An alternative response is to use a social media ban as a stimulus for companies to deliver policy reforms. Under this approach, companies risk a ban if they fail to implement certain product changes or meet certain safety outcomes. Understood as such, the ban represents a lever of enforcement.
Canada’s Digital Safety Act, proposed this month, chooses the stimulus route. It creates a mechanism for the new regulator to exempt a platform from its social media ban, provided the platform demonstrates that it has “adequate safeguards” to protect children.
Among the UK’s digital policy community, the emerging consensus is coalescing around similar ideas. This would satisfy the political desire for a ban, while offering an off-ramp for companies and the possibility that children can continue to enjoy their favored services in an age-appropriate manner.
The UK government must now define what it is that companies must do to avoid being caught. Off-ramps could range from companies adhering to existing codes of practice on child protection to strictly enforcing their existing minimum age policies or restricting certain functionalities and features like recommender systems and beauty filters. None of these options commands universal support. All involve complex policy trade-offs.
There are also practical questions. When the UK implemented its Online Safety Act, which requires websites that host violent or pornographic content to implement strict age-verification measures before granting access, Brits turned to virtual private networks (VPNs) — tools that spoof a user’s location— to mask their location and sidestep the restrictions. On the weekend the rules took effect, downloads of Proton VPN surged by 1,800%.
The VPNs that children are incentivized to use pose privacy and security risks. Bad actors in the VPN space often trade in the sensitive browsing data that these tools can gather.
Any ban could end up lowering safety rules. Under current British law, social media companies are required to provide children with stronger safety protections than they do adults. Should a ban come into effect, companies will likely retreat from offering these enhanced protections, on the assumption that age gates will keep them off platforms.
The UK government closed its public consultation on the social media ban in late May and is preparing its policy proposal for the summer. Its self-imposed deadline should force officials to engage with the hard policy questions.
It’s easy to compare social media use with smoking — both are sources of harm. But unlike smoking, social media brings real benefits to children. It fosters social connection with their peers, provides them with a creative outlet, and allows them access to useful information. Unlike with smoking, social media dangers can best be managed and mitigated without bans.
Owen Bennett a London-based independent expert in international digital policy and a Fellow at the Hertie School Centre for Digital Governance in Berlin. His previous in-house roles include Head of International Online Safety at Ofcom and Senior Policy Manager at Mozilla, the maker of Firefox.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
Tech 2030
A Roadmap for Europe-US Tech Cooperation
