Raising the digital age of consent is not the answer to online safety
(Credit: Peter Cripps / Alamy Stock Photo)
3 min read
When a coroner concluded that social media had played a more than considerable part in the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell, it caused global shockwaves.
It was seen by many as big tech’s 'big tobacco' moment, and a wake-up call for Silicon Valley execs who consistently put growth and market share before child safety.
A lot and little has changed since then. In the UK we have an Online Safety Act which meaningfully takes effect next year. The regulator Ofcom will imminently set out its rules for tackling illegal content. But heated debates remain about how to best protect children from the harm of social media. And crucially, platforms are little safer than they were when Molly died.
Bans would have a chilling effect on the progress we’ve made here with the Online Safety Act
Molly was just one of countless young people whose lives are tragically lost to social media. A UK family loses a young person to suicide where technology plays a role every single week.
New research shows the biggest social media sites abjectly failing to tackle suicide and self-harm content and promoting it through aggressive algorithms to children. It is in this climate that there is an understandable push by parents for politicians to do more. To get something done.
As we’ve seen with Australia, much of that has been focussed on banning children under 16 from social media.
While we understand the need to do more, this is fundamentally the wrong approach. This retrograde step that would push risks and bad actors onto gaming and messaging services and leave young people at a cliff-edge of harm when they turn 16.
Bans would have a chilling effect on the progress we’ve made here with the Online Safety Act and put much needed safety-by-design measures on hold. Governments should deliver legislation to make online platforms safe and age-appropriate rather than bans that would paradoxically increase harm in the short to medium term.
Another proposal being floated, including by Josh MacAlister in his Private Members' Bill, is to increase the so-called ‘digital age of consent’ to 16.
We don’t believe this is the best approach. Until we see regulators meaningfully enforce age assurance measures, increasing the age at which parental consent is required will essentially be no more than an academic exercise.
There is also limited if any available evidence of meaningful improvements in children’s safety or wellbeing in Ireland, France or other countries that set a higher age.
The UK government so far has been clear that it doesn't support a ban, and instead looks to the Online Safety Act as the solution. This is the right approach.
The government can and should go further by committing to building on the Online Safety Act with new legislation that can strengthen its core principles and more effectively hold the regulator’s feet to the fire.
Over the last year, structural issues with the Act have emerged. Further legislation can fix these issues and refocus Ofcom’s approach around measurable, sustained harm reduction.
The road to regulation has been slow and grinding. Much more must be done. As we stand at basecamp, we can either be daunted by the journey ahead of us and decide to turn back, or we can redouble our efforts to reach the summit.
Ministers now have a real opportunity to act boldly and decisively to strengthen regulation, and to demonstrate to children and parents that ambitious change is coming. Polling data shows that parents, children and civil society will be right behind them.
A new Online Safety Act is the best way forward to embed a duty of care on social media sites. This isn’t time for backward steps or sticking plaster approaches, but for the government to finish the job and comprehensively protect children from preventable harm.
Andy Burrows is chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
