A social media ban for under-16s is a controversial topic, it’s a measure many consider authoritarian, but some see the potential value; after all, social media has been linked to declining mental health in children. But a ban would be the worst solution, not only due to the fact it could disconnect vulnerable children from their communities as others have already warned, but because it is in fact a potential national security risk. Banning Social Media for under-16s could only work in one way; through the establishment of mass-surveillance.
As we have already seen with the need for ID to view content for over-18s, this surveillance state would not be Government owned, but outsourced to private companies. This is dangerous for a few reasons, most obviously being that these companies already collect and sell our data for a profit to whoever wants to push their agenda, whether that be harmless advertising or more worryingly, political manipulation. Additionally, whichever company got hold of all this data would instantly become a focal point for data breachers who would want access to a whole range of private accounts, from your bank account to your phone.
Sarah Kunst, who is involved with several Lib Dem donor groups had the following to say to me on the topic:
I invest in cybersecurity and the ban has me freaking out because the only way to enforce it is handing over all biometric data and IDs to companies like Persona (backed by Peter Thiel, already gives info to the US Government). It will be the biggest betrayal of British people possibly ever because, if there is a hack of the biometric database, it will mean that everyone is forever compromised (unless you get new eyes!) and the fraud vector is unimaginable. I truly think supporting it is treasonous and I cannot fathom how security services didn’t shut this horrific idea down.
Let us be clear, the tech lobby wants this ban to happen so they can have more data to push their agendas. We have seen this with Peter Thiel, an American plutocrat who claimed, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” and the use of medical data to help create the ICE raids we see now in America. We have seen this with Elon Musk, whose Social Media site X was found to intentionally boost Far-Right content, contributing to the radicalising of the Right. But perhaps the most potent example in Britain of the potential ramifications of this data harvesting, and one that will hit Lib Dems very personally, is the way Cambridge Analytica already used existing data to help effectively target people to vote in favour of Brexit, a project partially designed to allow us to deregulate and become the premier data marketplace.
The more data these companies have the better, because it becomes easier to manipulate us towards certain outcomes, and as we can see, the world they want is not in anybody’s interests but their own; and I am merely scratching the surface here. To quote the French President Macron;
Naively, we have entrusted our democratic space to social media controlled by American entrepreneurs or Chinese corporations whose interests do not align with the survival of democracy.
So recognised is the danger of this in France that they have recently taken to creating their own software for Parliamentary officials, banning US-owned software for fears of security.
Here’s the kicker, we voted for the ban! In the division for the Amendment, 61 of our MPs voted in favour. How can we call ourselves a Liberal Democrats under these credentials? Especially as in the October 2024 Conference we passed the Young Liberal vision for a digital Bill of Rights – written by the kind of people this ban would affect most – which specifically included provisions against disproportionate age gating and to safeguard the privacy of our data. If we do not wish to follow what our members vote for, then we should drop the “Democrats” from our name, and if we do not believe that people are rational enough to use Social Media without disproportionate effects on their privacy, we ought to drop the “Liberal” too.
Banning Social Media for a certain age group will not get rid of these people who do not believe in democracy, it will not end their attempts to backdoor their own personal control of everyone’s data into Government policy, and it certainly won’t protect my 6 year old brother from seeing harmful content on Dad’s phone anyway! But, demanding transparency and accountability will; my suggestion is that we make it a legal requirement for tech companies to open-source their algorithms so that an independent adjudicator such as Ofcom may judge whether they are intentionally biased; this would also mean anyone curious could look into what kind of content they are being served. Additionally, I would argue we need more protection over our data, so our personal information cannot be bought and sold as a commodity.
To once again quote Macron, “If we Europeans do not reclaim control of our democracy, in ten years, those exploiting this infrastructure will have won … Europe can rebuild a 21st-century democracy—but it requires action.”
* Rosemary Runswick is a Liberal Democrat activist in West Suffolk and a member of the Radical Association. She writes a blog at the Green Ribbon Club (https://greenribbonclub.blogspot.com/p/about.html).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
13 Comments
100%. This is moral panic legislation, and as Liberals and Democrats we should be opposing it. But no, let’s “think of the children”, never mind that this legislation will not actually help them and may harm them.
Goodness there is lots to disagree with in here.
“the way Cambridge Analytica already used existing data to help effectively target people to vote in favour of Brexit, a project partially designed to allow us to deregulate and become the premier data marketplace.” They didnt and there is no evidence Brexit had anything to do with our becoming a ‘data marketplace’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54457407
“I truly think supporting it is treasonous” this sort of hyperbole helps no-one. The same logic could be used against our NHS records.
“This is dangerous for a few reasons, most obviously being that these companies already collect and sell our data for a profit to whoever wants to push their agenda, whether that be harmless advertising or more worryingly, political manipulation. ” No they don’t – all of these are covered by GDPR
It’s telling to me that Molly Russell’s dad says under-16 social media ban would be wrong. That’s a BBC headline. The girl who’s social media fueled death became the face of this movement and her dad doesn’t support the ban. But mysterious family offices backing Smartphone Free Childhood and a VC backed phone startup(Nothing) is partnering with Mumsnet to push for a ban and we all accept this astroturfing? Our party should not be giving in to faux moral panic and sacrificing our identities, liberty and possibly bank accounts. Truly shocked that this policy uturn has been allowed. We never quite seem to stop selling young people out.
@Simon I have to politely disagree, while I was unaware of more recent news on the Analytica scandal, I have to say the source you’ve cited does still back up my point, to quote the BBC article directly; ‘The regulator fined Facebook a record £500,000 penalty for not doing enough to protect its users from their data being “harvested” for political purposes, a failing which it said caused a “serious risk of harm”.’ Additionally, you’re going to have to refute my claim on data marketplace deregulation a bit more seriously than that considering I have linked a paper discussing just that in the article.
On the topic of NHS data, I would actually say it is equally worrysome in this field, Peter Thiel, who I also mentioned here as having used US medical data to help create ICE raids, has recently signed a deal with the Government to give his company, Palantir, access to NHS data too. I’m not anti the collection of necessary data, but I am worried about the kind of person it is going to.
On your point on the GDPR specifically, there is divergence between the UK GDPR and the mainland European one, and there were already Acts passed to reduce it’s protections in certain fields under the last Conservative Government, and this does not alter my point that there is a serious lobby to deregulate things further which is very dangerous.
Could I just point out for anyone who didn’t spot it that Spring conference overwhelmingly backed the YL position opposing a social media ban for U16s.
There’s also the unfortunate fact that our Government considers Social Media to be anything with user to user interaction. For example, even this would count – as would Calendar apps and Weather apps (some allow you to send photos of where you live). Australia at least had the sense to limit it to 10 big sites. This would effectively “papers, please” the entire internet.
@Peter Yes, thanks for mentioning it! I had included an ask to vote in favour of the motion in my original version, but apparently it got lost in the Lib Dem Voice junk mail section during Conference so it was no longer relevant to include. Much love to everyone who backed the motion. <3
It’s a shame this country doesn’t have a liberal party to oppose things like this.
Well done Rose for a compelling article, I was unaware that our MPs had been daft enough to vote in this way. And Munira Wilson’s comment “The government’s failure to commit to a ban on harmful social media is simply not good enough” is embarrassing, especially as conference voted to include “While children‘s mental health should be protected from harmful social media, the crude outright ban proposed by the Conservatives would have serious unintended consequences and is the wrong approach.”
It is too early to take many lessons from the Australian experiment, but there is a very good article in the Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-social-media-ban-results-under-16-b2944500.html which is well worth reading. A BBC report suggests that many teenagers are either not being removed, or are finding workarounds, so its effectiveness as a ‘ban’ is open to question. I think the government is right to approach this issue with caution, provided they do actually tackle it.
Hardly a surprise seeing as the party voted for the smoking ban which year on year infantilises adults. The most dangerous place to be at Westminster is stood between a so called progressive politician – and a bandwagon….
@Craig Levene: That was a free vote and a substantial minority of Lib Dem MPs voted against it. I don’t think the two issues are comparable anyway.
Reactionary politicians enjoy jumping on bandwagons as well y’know. If anything they are worse than the “progressive” lot. I put this one down to general cluelessness on the part of most of our politicians (regardless of leaning) on tech issues.
In this case the vote certainly didn’t break down on any “left” vs “right” grounds.
– in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment and replacing it with a much more open-ended and flexible power to regulate U16 use of the internet, rather than rejecting the concept outright (which isn’t exactly good either!): Labour, SDLP, a couple of ex-Labour independents
– in favour of accepting the Lords amendment: Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, Reform, SNP, other independents and smaller parties.
– proposing the Lords amendment in the first place: Conservatives, Lib Dems