The UK's internet regulator Ofcom has published new codes to protect children from harmful online content, but critics say it has been "overly cautious" and slow in its approach.
Platforms that host pornography or content that could encourage self-harm, suicidal thoughts or eating disorders are now required to have stronger age checks for users, such as facial age estimation or credit card checks. Platforms will also be required to filter out harmful content from their algorithms into children's feeds.
It is part of the Online Safety Act that was passed in 2023 and is being introduced in stages.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle described the code as a "watershed moment" that is "turning the tide on toxic" online experiences.
“In recent years, too many young people have been exposed to lawless, poisonous environments online, which we know can lead to real and sometimes fatal consequences," Mr Kyle said. “The largest social media companies now having to prioritise children’s safety by law."
He did not rule out further restrictions. "We won’t hesitate to go further to protect our children. They are the foundation, not the limit, when it comes to children’s safety online.”
Mr Kyle added that he had been exploring the ideas of social media curfew for teenagers, similar to those introduced by TikTok, as well as the online equivalent of a TV watershed in which content deemed for adults appears from a specific time.
He told The Telegraph that he had been "watching very carefully" the impact of Tiktok's 10pm curfews for under 16s and the tools it provides for parents to switch off access at set times.
Mr Kyle said: “These are things I am looking at. I’m not going to act on something that will have a profound impact on every single child in the country without making sure that the evidence supports it, but I am investing in [researching] the evidence, I’m engaging with it, and I’m raring to go.”
Ofcom boss Dame Melanie Dawes said the code marked a "reset" for children online. "They will mean safer social media feeds with less harmful and dangerous content, protections from being contacted by strangers and effective age checks on adult content. If companies fail to act they will face enforcement.”
The draft codes were made available for public consultations in May. Social media companies were given three months in January to determine whether children were likely to access their service, a period that ended last week.
They will now be given another three months to conduct a risk assessment, which would determine what other measures they will need to take beyond age-checking, based on the level of risk.
As of July 25, Ofcom can impose fines up to £18 million or 10 per cent of global revenue and – in very serious cases – apply for a court order to prevent the site or app from being available in the UK.
Yet online safety campaigners have criticised Ofcom's "risk adverse" and "overly cautious" codes.
"I am dismayed by the lack of ambition in today's codes," said Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly Rose was a victim of harmful online content.
"Instead of moving fast to fix things, the painful reality is that Ofcom’s measures will fail to prevent more young deaths like my daughter Molly's," he said.
"Ofcom’s risk adverse approach is a bitter pill for bereaved parents to swallow. Their overly cautious codes put the bottom line of reckless tech companies ahead of tackling preventable harm."
He called on the Prime Minister Keir Starmer to personally intervene, "without delay to strengthen online safety legislation.”
Campaigners say the new codes will be ineffective in curbing algorithms that recommend harmful online content to children. They point to a “loophole” that allows the platforms to keep content online until they know it is harmful.
“Instead of requiring firms not to algorithmically recommend harmful content, the regulator has built in a loophole – platforms must only ensure they don’t recommend content if they already know it’s harmful,” said the Molly Rose Foundation, an online safety campaign group established by Ian Russell. “Tech platforms won’t have to stop showing deeply dangerous challenges, they’ll merely have to recommend them to users less often."
Campaigners also fear that Ofcom will not act fast enough to keep up with a US political climate that prioritises online freedom of speech over protection.
US Vice President JD Vance raised the UK’s “infringements on free speech” and its effect on US tech companies during a meeting with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer last month. Meta replaced its fact-checking programme with community notes earlier this year, saying it would allow “more speech”.
Yet the MRF said it had “no assurances” from Ofcom that new measures would be taken to protect teenagers from Meta’s “rollback of hate speech policies”, adding that children were now at “greater risk of cumulative harm driven by algorithms”.
The question of algorithms is one that unites the supporters and critics of stricter government regulation on social media.
The Advertising Association warned of "compliance burdens" for services that are not primarily aimed at children, affecting small to medium sized businesses and start-ups, in its critique of the draft code.
Big Brother Watch, a campaign group that focuses on online privacy, feared stricter age checks comes at the expense of online anonymity, which it says is also crucial for teenagers exploring issues that may be too sensitive to discuss at home.
Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, introduced new restrictions to its teen accounts this month ahead of the new codes.
Children under 16 will not be able to go live on Instagram or to turn off protection from unwanted images without permission from their parents, who would be added to the account. The minimum age to access Instagram and Facebook has remained at 13.
Meta also said it has moved at least 54 million youths globally into teen accounts since they were introduced in September, and that 97 per cent of those aged between of 13 and 15 have also kept its built-in restrictions.
