A popular petition issued to the UK Parliament last week contains an appeal to the government not to ban social media access for children under the age of 16. It should be taken seriously.
The UK is not alone in debating the issue of whether, and how much, to control children’s social media consumption. Australia has been a trailblazer while governments across Europe have moved in this direction.
The move is no doubt driven by a sincere fear of the unknown consequences of the lifestyle change that has enveloped the generation now coming of age. But while few could doubt the sincerity of the proponents of a ban in the UK, I cannot help but think their opponents see the future more clearly.
The battle to stop the oncoming legislation is most certainly against the trend of the times. The move for a ban is already far down the tracks in the French Parliament.
While the Australian ban is for under 16s, the French measure would target under 15s. The UK has already started statutory consultations on any restrictions it could propose. In other words, the details of the measures vary from country to country.
Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X will be the platforms most affected by these measures. But once we get to this point, things start to get tricky.
What about the messaging platforms offered by the phone giants themselves, or the wider tier of social media apps? Then there is the interconnected world of gaming platforms and how these messaging systems are easily accessible on phones and tablets.
The French proposal, being guided through Parliament, is being shepherded by the government-backed MP Laure Miller. Under her scheme, there would be specific prohibitions for what are deemed dangerous features offered by each particular platform.
All this would be governed by the Digital Services Act of the EU, which sees Brussels fine social media companies for violations. With Denmark and Spain also lined up to impose restrictions, there is a potential spaghetti junction of rules and bans coming down the tracks for at least a handful of social media platforms.
One consequence of making the move now is that the first generation affected will be one that was beginning school as the Covid-19 pandemic struck.
The enforced isolation in those years was for many, if not most, a digital incubator. Educational services were mainly delivered through devices – as were the most fundamental familial and personal communications, for example with grandparents.
The plasticity of the brain is something that is acknowledged by the medical community as a factor here. But I’m not sure the politicians eager to stand up against social media bosses are taking note.
The volatility of life’s circumstances is something that this generation was nurtured on. Codes and ethics across the digital spectrum are an ongoing conversation that is turning into an epic struggle. Just look at the reports from the AI conference that was held in New Delhi last week for a sense of how opportunity impulses mix with danger signals.
Being AI-native, today’s teenagers will always have options for communication. There are strong arguments that we can see their brains forming with the technology. Exposure is vital for whatever life skills will be demanded from them when they grow up.
The social media ban is, therefore, addressing a particular strand of digital development – and it should be seen as such.
Facebook started as a dating platform for college students. Arguably, it was established to address a problem that did not really exist. Students, after all, have been able to interact and form relationships across history. Yet, according to the US-based journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 60 per cent of new couples met online in 2024.
Similarly, the evolution of social media use among young people has been such that communication between their peers is now dominated by messaging. This is, of course, an outcome of the compelling and compulsive nature of social media. But for this age group, it is also a factor of the pandemic.
Trying to bring this to a blunt stop with laws and bans is good politics for representatives who want to get noticed. It may also assist parents who see terrible consequences in their children and want to lay down boundaries. But it is hard to see how it is realistic in achieving its goals.
For a start, it offers no alternatives. There is not a world of reaching back to reading hard-copy books and playing endlessly with a football outside the front door.
Also, the scope of the mission that the legislators have set themselves is too big.
The creator of the UK petition, which has attracted almost 60,000 signatures, argues that social media is a lifeline for young people. Experts say the link is being widely shared by those who would be affected by the ban.
The UK is in any case in a consultation, so the process should include a discussion on the petition. The possible effects of a ban should be subjected to close scrutiny before the bill is passed in Parliament.
Because once passed, the legislation is unlikely to be rescinded. How quickly it becomes a relic of a political moment will, then, be a fundamental test for the politicians seeking to frame the future.
