Social Media's "Big Tobacco Moment"?
Some critics of the technology giants are already describing the recent verdict as social media's "big tobacco moment." A jury in Los Angeles found that Google and Meta deliberately designed addictive social media platforms, marking a significant legal precedent. This decision arrives as countries worldwide debate how to regulate social media more strictly and whether to prohibit children from using these platforms.
Australia has already implemented such bans, and other nations have introduced or are planning tighter regulations.
In the United Kingdom, the government is currently conducting a consultation to determine its next steps.
UK Government Consultation on Social Media and Children
The consultation, launched earlier this month, outlines the core challenge faced by ministers and society at large. The government stated:
"Social media use among children and adolescents is almost universal. The proportion of children with social media profiles has increased significantly in the last 5 years. We must ensure children can engage with the online world safely,"
The primary question is how to achieve this safety. The consultation's initial inquiry concerns the possibility of setting a minimum age for children to access social media. It asks, if such a measure is appropriate, what the correct age threshold should be.
Within hours of the Los Angeles verdict, the UK government issued a statement indicating that its consultation is considering banning social media use for those under 16 years old and exploring ways to address "addictive design features." The statement concluded:
"When it comes to children's safety, nothing is off the table and we will set out our plans in the summer."
The consultation is scheduled to close towards the end of May, with the government expected to respond before the end of July.
Political Dynamics and Legislative Developments
There is a sense among ministers that the US court case provides an opportunity to advocate more confidently for stricter regulations, especially concerning children. However, at present, it is opposition politicians who are leading the push for a ban on social media use by those under 16.
The House of Lords has once again opposed the government by supporting proposals for such a ban. During a debate on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Wednesday night, peers voted 266 to 141, a majority of 125 votes, in favour of amendments introduced by Conservative former schools minister Lord Nash.
This marks the second occasion on which the Lords have defeated the government on this issue. Earlier this month, Members of Parliament voted against the proposed change, but peers insisted on the amendment, which would require ministers to decide within a year which social media platforms should be inaccessible to under-16s.
This vote has resulted in a standoff over the issue.
Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott commented:
"Peers have once again done the right thing and backed a ban on social media for under 16s by a huge margin. It is disappointing that Labour were the only party not to support it. Labour have once again chosen delay over action, with yet another consultation.
This falls well short of the scale of the problem and leaves the door open to weak and ineffective measures."
Prime Minister's Position and Future Considerations
The Prime Minister's general stance on the matter is clear. Last month, he wrote on Substack that social media "has become something that is quietly harming our children" and expressed a desire to "crack down on the addictive elements… the never ending scrolling, that keeps our children hooked on their screens for hours, and stop kids getting around age limits."
Nevertheless, questions remain about the extent of the government's willingness to act. How far will the government go? What measures would be considered too restrictive, and which would be insufficient?
