😟 Social Media Use: Minimum Age

• The House debated e-petition 700086, which calls for a minimum age of 16 for social media use, initiated by Kim Campbell and supported by over 130,000 signatories.

• A poll showed that 75% of UK adults support a social media age limit of 16, while another survey indicated similar support for banning smartphones in schools.

• MPs discussed the benefits of social media, such as building positive relationships and improving creativity, but highlighted its potential harms, including exposure to radical ideologies, mental health crises, and addiction.

• The Online Safety Act 2023 requires social media companies to conduct risk assessments and implement age assurance measures. However, it was noted that these measures may not be sufficient to address all risks.

• Some MPs proposed raising the digital age of consent from 13 to 16, which could prevent social media companies from harvesting data and targeting harmful content to children.

• Discussions included the importance of involving children in policy-making around social media, and the necessity for better parental controls and education on safe internet use.

• The challenge of enforcing age restrictions was acknowledged, as many children under 13 already use social media. MPs suggested a public health approach and the need for robust enforcement.

• The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms emphasized the urgency of protecting children and mentioned that further legislative actions are likely in the future.

• The debate concluded with a consensus that the current situation cannot continue and cross-party action is needed to address the issue effectively.

The level of disagreement in the session on Social Media Use: Minimum Age can be rated as a 2 on a scale from 1 to 5, indicating moderate disagreement. This rating is based on several factors as observed in the transcript of the parliamentary session:

• General Consensus on Need for Action: There is a clear consensus among the participants that some form of legislative action is necessary to protect children from the harms of social media. Almost all speakers express concern over the impact of social media on children’s mental health, and there is agreement that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. For instance, both Tony Vaughan and Rebecca Paul emphasize the need for stronger action, with Vaughan stating that ‘the status quo cannot continue’ and Paul advocating for raising the minimum age for social media to 16.

• Points of Divergence: Despite the broad agreement on the need for action, the specific measures and approaches to addressing the issue vary. Notable points of disagreement include:
  • Age Restriction: There is disagreement on whether to outright ban social media for children under 16, as proposed by some, or to strengthen the existing age restriction to 16. While some members, such as Rebecca Paul, support raising the minimum age to 16, others, like Mike Reader, express skepticism about the effectiveness of an age restriction, arguing that it might not be feasible or enforceable.
  • Role of Enforcement and Enforcement Mechanisms: Participants have different views on how to enforce regulations. Rebecca Paul discusses the need for better enforcement to prevent age circumvention through VPNs, whereas the Minister, Chris Bryant, mentions the importance of ensuring that Ofcom has the power and ability to enforce regulations effectively.
  • Evidence and Burden of Proof: The issue of the evidence needed to justify action and where the burden of proof should lie also shows some disagreement. Josh MacAlister argues for placing the burden of proof on social media companies to show their platforms are safe, while Damian Hinds and Chris Bryant highlight the complexities in establishing causal links between social media use and mental health issues.
  • Legislative and Implementation Strategy: There is disagreement on the timing and necessity of further legislation. While some members call for immediate further legislation, Chris Bryant notes that the current Online Safety Act needs time to be fully implemented before considering additional laws.
• Examples of Disagreement:
  • Tony Vaughan supports changing the onus on social media companies to prove their platforms are safe for children; Chris Bryant, while sympathetic, urges caution in implementing changes and enforcing them effectively.
  • Mike Reader argues against a blanket restriction, suggesting that it might push children to darker areas of the internet and emphasizing the role of parents, schools, and social media companies in creating safer environments. This contrasts with Rebecca Paul and others who advocate for a clear age restriction.
  • Josh MacAlister calls for immediate action based on existing evidence, whereas Chris Bryant emphasizes the need for more comprehensive evidence and a phased implementation of the Online Safety Act.

In conclusion, while there is significant agreement on the need for improved child safety in the digital realm, the session reveals moderate disagreements over specific approaches, enforcement methods, evidence requirements, and the urgency of legislative action. This justifies a rating of 2, reflecting a session with some divergence but not highly contentious disagreements.