When I arrived at 10 Downing Street this morning to hear the prime minister announce the UK's social media ban for under-16s, I had to hand in my phone for security reasons. The temporary anxiety it gave me was perhaps a small insight into how many of the nation's 13 to 15-year-olds were feeling, as they too waited to hear the outcome of months of discussion and speculation about their online lives.
Sir Keir Starmer's news was bold and blunt: yes there will be a ban, yes it will follow Australia's model, and yes, there will be additional curbs which will impact older children, aged 16 and 17, as well. A night-time curfew is expected to be part of this. The UK's plan had been dubbed "Australia Plus" and now we know why.
“PM Starmer announces social media ban for under-16s, following Australia's model, with night-time curfew for 16-17 year olds.”
But Australia's ban has faced well-documented problems, not least because the majority of children who had social media accounts before the ban was enforced in December, still have them. The response from the UK government is the same answer I hear every time there's an online safety intervention: the ban will not be a "silver bullet" but will still make some difference.
Sir Keir made several comparisons to laws about drinking alcohol: we know some teens under the age of 18 still drink, but we also know there are plenty of times when the law prevents it. But we also know that 16-year-olds can still legally have sex, join the armed forces, and in some parts of the UK get married and vote in some elections. Can they not also be trusted on Instagram at night?
Given how many horror stories I have heard during the course of my career about children coming to harm on gaming platforms and forums, it was surprising to learn that they will be exempt. However they will have to disable livestreaming, as that is included in the ban.
The big question of course is how this is actually going to work. I did ask the PM but he didn't directly tell me. Australia's failing is believed to be in weak age verification methods adopted by the tech companies. I've heard from a couple of fuming industry contacts today that they were under the impression that it would be up to Apple and Google to gatekeep devices. This would mean when someone aged under 16 sets up a device in the UK, they can't download banned apps from the app stores. The people I spoke to are blindsided that this no longer appears to be the case and it will be down to the individual platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and the rest. And the deadline for them to figure out a better alternative is short: less than a year to meet the proposed implementation next spring.
Labour MP Feryal Clark argues the ban risks locking young people out of learning. "High-quality, creator-led video content is a valuable resource; it is not the same thing as social media consumption," she said. "Any legislative intervention has to be capable of recognising this distinction and the scale of our concern should not be an excuse for blunt solutions."
Other experts argue that toxic online behaviour is a societal rather than a technology problem, and the blunt instrument of blocking the tech altogether on its own is not the solution.