Under 18s should be protected from online harm, not just under 16s
4 min read
All online services – not just social media platforms – that use harmful features and functionalities should be banned from access to children.
The government is due to respond to the consultation on banning social media for under-16s. But the Westminster debate feels a million miles from the reality of young people’s lives.
I’m touring the country to promote my Big Future survey. I’ve held discussions with children in schools, hospitals and youth clubs from Carlisle to Birmingham to Leicester.
Many young people tell me they don’t want to be banned from social media. Digital spaces are where they learn, connect and play.
One of my young ambassadors, Annabel, recently told an event that she found a community on Instagram after she lost her leg. She is now the star striker for England Women’s amputee football team.
She said: “I use my social media to show children that there is life after diagnosis. Even if you've lost a leg or lost a limb, you can still live life to the best of your ability and have so much fun and that's actually led to many children and parents reaching out to me online.”
But then they start to tell me about the negatives.
Young people recognise that the platforms and services are addictive.
My recent representative poll of UK teenagers aged 13 to 17 showed 26 per cent want to spend less time scrolling online. They turn off notifications, delete one or more accounts and use apps or tech to block or limit access. But they tell me it doesn’t work, and they want our help.
Others describe seeing things they don’t want to see. My research on pornography shows that more than a quarter (27 per cent) of young people who had seen pornography said they had seen it online by 11. One child seeing porn is one too many.
Strangers are also approaching children online. My polling shows that among teenagers who play video games, 51 per cent said yes to ‘While playing video games, has someone you didn’t know ever sent you a message or chat?’ We know that gaming platforms, where children go to play, are places where serious grooming offences occur.
However bad we think it is, it is often far worse.
Young people fixated on violence, often with no ideology, have become one of the fastest-growing concerns of counter terrorism police. Senior police officers have told me about the growing harm of online community groups grooming and exploiting often vulnerable children to self-harm.
The UK has passed the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has enforcement cases open and is taking action against some online services that flout UK law. I want to see them continue to work for the UK to be the safest place for children to be online.
I am also pleased to be working with the Department for Education on screen use guidance. Children and adults alike want clear, trustworthy information and advice on screens. But guidance alone isn’t enough.
The harm from technology companies’ unconditional and unfettered access to children is clear. Young people are challenging us to do better.
That is why I want to reset the debate. It is not about ‘banning children’. Children have done nothing wrong. It is about banning powerful technology companies from accessing and harming our children.
I have been calling for all online services – not just social media platforms, but gaming sites and any platforms that make use of harmful features and functionalities – to be banned from accessing children, until they can prove that they are designed in a way that will protect children’s safety and wellbeing.
This will mean drawing up a list of all the features that make online services risky for children, because they increase the risk of addiction, seeing harmful content, or being contacted by strangers.
That list will need to include persuasive design features like autoplay, infinite scrolling and popularity metrics (the “like” button and count, for instance) as well as features that allow users to share their location and livestream.
Any service using these features and functionalities should not be allowed to access children until they remove those features or genuinely mitigate the harms they cause. If and when online services prove, using a robust risk assessment system, that they are safe, the age limit can be removed.
I believe this restriction must apply equally to all children – that means until they turn 18. Because if we are genuinely seeking to safeguard children from harm, we cannot allow 16- and 17-year-olds to have lesser protection.
Childhood is changing rapidly. As I enter my sixth and final year as Children’s Commissioner, I know that the best policy is one where children’s voices are heard loudly and clearly.
I am glad that the government is acknowledging the gravity of the harm children face. I will be scrutinising the plans with care to ensure that they genuinely cover the greatest risks, can be robustly enforced, and truly make children safer.
Dame Rachel de Souza is the Children's Commissioner for England
