By Lauren Agnew, Head of Policy & Public Affairs, CEASE
If I’m honest, when I first started exploring the conversation around raising the age of access to social media, I was on the fence.
I strongly support safety by design: the notion that platforms by their very design should be made safe for children and should have functionalities which are child-appropriate and place children’s safety first.
My hesitation around a “social media ban” centred on not wanting to advocate for a “sticking plaster” solution that failed to incentivise tech companies to do better in creating safe platforms for children.
I quickly came to realise, however, it’s not an either-or solution; it needs to be both.
As a user of social media, I have always been aware that Big Tech companies were savvy in how they designed their platforms, how they pushed out algorithmic content and kept users’ attention. I myself am not immune to the endless scrolling or, admittedly, the pursuit of likes and the brief dopamine spikes they provide, which can quickly become an unhealthy habit.
What harms do children face on social media?
What unnerved me, however, was the realisation of just how intentional and harmful this manipulative design is when it comes to driving inappropriate content to children.
Social media platforms are not only harmful in terms of what they expose children to, but also in how they expose children to it through risky functionalities and addictive design.
The evidence of harms is stark and includes: platforms providing a conduit for predators and paedophiles to contact kids, the porn-adjacent sexual content which promotes objectification and harmful sexual behaviours, and content commodifying sex and grooming young girls to think of sex as something they perform and sell, whilst also grooming boys to see women as sexual objects and sex as something that can be bought.
Perhaps most troubling of all is that children aren’t simply going looking for harmful content – it’s increasingly being recommended to them, dripped into their feeds through manipulative algorithms designed to maximise engagement.
We are the product of what we consume, and the digital diet being fed to children is leading to harmful attitudes, the normalisation of risky sex, commodification, objectification and violence against women and girls.
Needless to say, once I knew the harms, I couldn’t unknow them. How could we not want to take immediate action to safeguard children from predators? How could we turn a blind eye to the harmful sexual content children were consuming via social media? Why would we want to stall their safety by continuing to wait around for tech companies to clean up their act?
In fact, why didn’t we act sooner?
By this stage I was already convinced by the evidence that raising the age of access to social media was a necessary and proportionate response to the harms being incurred by children on these platforms.
Why are children “the product” for social media companies?
Following a roundtable discussion with Matthew Bergman, I felt even more confident in the need for this response.
Bergman is the US Attorney who represented a 20-year-old woman in a landmark case against Meta and YouTube. A Los Angeles jury found that these companies had created addictive products that caused her significant harm. Bergman now represents over 1000 other plaintiffs in similar cases.
As he walked us through recent court cases and exposed the various harms children had experienced online, from compulsive platform use, predatory contact and sexual exploitation to exposure to self-harm and eating disorder content and serious mental health difficulties, I was struck both by the severity of harms and his reflections on platform design.
Bergman made clear, “The algorithm is agnostic in terms of what it shows a child. Algorithms are designed to maximise engagement. When you’re on social media, you are not the customer – you are the product.”
It’s particularly chilling to think that children are perceived as products – their uninterrupted attention and addiction to social media the marker for success for Big Tech companies. The reality is we are all, children included, pawns in this digital age for social media companies driven by profit.
What Meta’s internal documents reveal
An internal Meta document has shed light on their growth strategy in relation to children. The document states, “If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”
Other internal communications from Meta’s employees have shown them discussing the addictive qualities of social media, with one Meta employee likening Instagram to a “drug” with another employee responding, “we’re basically pushers.”
That’s when the penny really dropped for me and I wanted to throw my own phone out the window and delete all of my social media apps. Spoiler alert – I didn’t, but the fact it evoked such a dramatic reaction is indicative of just how dire I thought the social media landscape really was.
Big Tech’s business model is based on identifying what captures our attention and exploits our vulnerabilities – all the more so with children who, by virtue of their stage of development, are more susceptible to feeds awash with violence, sexual objectification, and content that makes them feel bad about themselves and others.
Social media platforms are anything but neutral – and nor should our response be.
Why should access to children be conditional on safety?
To date, social media platforms have had free access to children on these platforms, monetising their vulnerabilities, capturing their attention and entrapping them through addictive design.
The harmful content online isn’t static – platforms actively push it to children through their design, compounding the harm.
However, access to children is a privilege and not a right. If platforms abuse it, intentionally for profit’s sake, or through negligence when it comes to a lack of prioritising safety by design, this access should immediately be revoked.
Is raising the age of access a social media “ban”?
Calling this move a “ban” doesn’t quite capture the reality of what this policy is trying to achieve and risks understating the decisive action Government has taken to address the harm. The reality is that although this does restrict children from accessing social media, more fundamentally, it’s about restricting social media companies’ access to children until they are guaranteed safe by design.
We support a conditional restriction of access because it creates a powerful incentive for platforms to prioritise child safety ahead of profit. This sends a clear message that failure to protect children has consequences.
This is not a no or a never to social media for children under 16. It’s a no unless and until social media platforms can show children will be safe. Until then, we can’t delay action any longer.
I’m no longer on the fence – quite the opposite. Raising the age of access to social media isn’t a knee-jerk reaction from Government but, given the weight of the evidence, it should have happened sooner.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the new minimum age to access social media?
The Government is raising the age of access to 16 for social media.
Is the UK banning social media for under-16s?
No. Calling it a “ban” understates what the policy achieves. It restricts social media companies’ access to children until platforms are guaranteed safe by design. Parents and children face no penalties.
What new restrictions will apply to under-16s?
The proposals would restrict under-16s’ access to certain high-risk online features, particularly livestreaming and direct communication with strangers.
Why not just wait for platforms to become safe by design?
It’s not an either-or solution; it needs to be both. Children shouldn’t have their safety stalled while we wait for tech companies to clean up their act.
How do algorithms harm children?
Harmful content isn’t just found; it’s recommended, dripped into children’s feeds through manipulative algorithms designed to maximise engagement. As attorney Matthew Bergman puts it: “When you’re on social media, you are not the customer, you are the product.”
When could under-16s regain access to social media?
When platforms can show children will be safe. It’s not a no or a never; it’s a no unless and until platforms guarantee safety by design.