Campaigners warn Australia-style social media ban risks giving UK “false sense of safety”
New research from Australia raises doubts over the effectiveness of social media bans for protecting children online
A failing social media ban would create “a false sense of safety that quickly unravels”, an online safety campaigner has warned before a debate in Parliament about children’s digital rights.
Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, warned new polling raised “major questions about the effectiveness” of a social media ban in Australia, where children aged under 16 are not allowed to have accounts.
The poll found three in five Australian children aged between 12 and 15 still have access to one or more online account which should have been restricted as a result of the law, which came into effect last year.
In the UK, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has previously said her department “will look closely at the experience in Australia” before deciding which approach to take.
The Government has proposed a broad power to limit children’s access to social media as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which could include curfews, time limits or targeted bans.
A consultation is under way to help the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) choose a next step.
But peers in the Lords have insisted on a default ban on under-16s using platforms deemed the most harmful, with a 12-month implementation window.
MPs and peers must agree on their approach to the Bill through a process known as ping-pong, with the next Commons debate set to take place on Wednesday.
The polling in Australia, of 1,050 children, found 14% of 12 to 15-year-olds said the ban has made them feel less safe.
The Molly Rose Foundation and YouthInsight polling also found 60% of continuing Instagram and TikTok users said platforms had taken no action to remove or deactivate an account they had.
This figure rose to 61% for Snapchat users and 64% for YouTube users.
Around half of children who used social media before the new rules – 51% – said they felt the restrictions have made no change to their safety online.
“These results raise major questions about the effectiveness of Australia’s social media ban and show it would be a high stakes gamble for the UK to follow suit now,” Mr Burrows said.
“Parents and children deserve better than a flawed ban that delivers a false sense of safety that quickly unravels.
“Proponents of a ban argue that it offers an immediate and decisive firebreak, but the early evidence from Australia shows it only lets tech firms off the hook and fails to give children the step change in online safety and wellbeing they need.
“The quickest and most decisive means to protect children is stronger regulation that finally calls time on egregious product safety failures, with a commitment to a new Online Safety Act in the upcoming King’s Speech.”
Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly died in 2017 after experiencing depression and viewing harmful online content, said: “The Prime Minister is right that tackling addictive and dangerous design choices is key.
“He must now put words into action with strengthened regulation that cuts to the heart of business models that put profit over safety.
“Keir Starmer has the chance to make the UK a world leader in online safety by following the evidence with robust new laws that give parents what they are rightly demanding.
“The cost is too high to get this wrong by rushing into an Australia-style ban that offers the perception of security but is letting children down in practice.”
Lord Nash, who proposed an age limit on harmful social media as part of the Bill, said “techies” have taken a “cavalier approach” to content damaging to children.
“The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth and job-creating people in the world,” the Conservative former minister told the Lords last month.
“But in relation to that cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, I think they’ve gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts, and we need to act now in a way that is truly effective.”
The Lords backed his ban, but MPs in the Commons voted to strip it out by a majority of 134, instead agreeing to give the Government the wider and more flexible power.
Peers voted to insist on the ban by a majority of 125, and as part of efforts to agree a final position, MPs will again debate the proposal this week.
A DSIT spokesperson said polling from Australia “underlines the importance of getting the next steps right”.
They added: “Our consultation on children’s wellbeing online looks at a breadth of options – from digital curfews and time limits on apps, to a social media ban.
“It is focused on ensuring that any action we take is technically sound, enforceable, and places real responsibility on the platforms themselves, to give children and parents the genuine protection they deserve.”