Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.
The UK House of Lords has once again backed a proposal to prohibit children under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms. This move urges the government to act more swiftly in safeguarding young users online. The amendment, introduced by Conservative former minister Lord Nash, was approved by peers with a vote tally of 266 to 141 as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
This marks the second occasion on which the Lords have overruled the government on this matter. The proposed amendment would require ministers to determine within a year which social media services should be off-limits to those under 16. In response, Technology Minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra emphasized that “it is not if we act, but how,” defending the government’s approach of conducting a consultation to consider following Australia’s example by potentially implementing a ban.
Support for the ban is divided. Some campaigners and experts back the idea, citing child protection concerns, while others worry that such restrictions might be evaded or push young people towards riskier, less regulated parts of the internet. Representatives from major tech companies Meta and Google stated before the science, innovation and technology committee that the minimum age for UK users should not be raised. Meanwhile, TikTok and X officials declared a neutral stance on the issue. Although MPs overturned the initial attempt by peers to amend the bill, they are expected to reject this latest version as well, given the government’s substantial majority. The bill is currently in the “ping-pong” stage, where it moves back and forth between the Commons and Lords until a mutually agreed version is achieved.
During the debate, Lord Nash shared his experience as a former director of technology firms in California, praising the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of “Californian techies.” However, he criticized what he described as their “cavalier approach” to online harms affecting children, asserting that commercial interests had been prioritized excessively. Lord Nash also expressed frustration with the government’s consultation process, calling it “a shocker” and becoming emotional while acknowledging bereaved parents campaigning for legal reform after the tragic loss of their children. He stated, “I don’t want to be standing up here in six or 12 months banging the same old drum with even more bereaved parents in the gallery.”
Other peers voiced their opinions as well. Liberal Democrat Baroness Benjamin warned that the government was risking children’s safety by relying on a prolonged consultation, stating it “delivers nothing but more and more delay.” Online safety advocate Baroness Kidron remarked, “While we consult, children are harmed in real time and we cannot afford to wait.” Conversely, Baroness Fox of Buckley raised doubts about the effectiveness of Australia’s ban, noting concerns that teenagers might be driven towards unregulated online spaces where no safeguards exist. For the government, Baroness Lloyd argued that Lord Nash’s amendment would force specific actions that “may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children” and could lead to unintended consequences by acting before fully understanding the needs of parents and children through the consultation, which has already received nearly 30,000 responses and closes on 26 May.
The debate coincided with a recent legal ruling in Los Angeles, where a jury concluded that Meta and Google had intentionally designed addictive social media platforms harmful to the mental health of a 20-year-old. Both companies have disagreed with the verdict and announced plans to appeal the decision
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.