Protecting children online is not an attack on liberty

While we have seen many teenagers upset, the fact remains that the benefits of social media for children are limited, and the harms are extensive. There are three distinct reasons why restricting access for children is both justified and necessary.

The first is perhaps the most obvious: children are increasingly losing their childhoods to screens. Social media platforms are deliberately designed to be addictive. Just take a moment to reflect on your own screen time. Like for many of us, I would imagine it’s quite high. This is the exact algorithm encouraging children to spend hours each day on endless scrolling. For many children, real-life experiences have increasingly been replaced by online ones.

Today, when a kid was asked what they will do with the extra time they will have, they said “stare at a wall.” The response gave me the chills. If children genuinely believe that the alternative to social media is staring at a wall, then we have all failed to provide them with richer, healthier and more meaningful ways to spend their time. Childhood should be spent playing sports, reading books, seeing friends, developing hobbies and exploring the world around them. In contrast, the feed is like a drug that keeps them scrolling.

The second reason concerns safety. Social media has become an environment in which abuse thrives. Rage-baiting content has become commonplace, particularly since content creation became monetised. The more controversial the content, the more engagement it generates and the more likely it is to be amplified by algorithms. Online abuse has become omnipresent, with strangers able to contact children with remarkably little oversight or accountability.

The rise of generative AI has only intensified these risks. Deepfake pornography is now a reality, with women and children among the primary targets.

Finally, and perhaps most important in the long run, is the information environment in which children are growing up. Social media is saturated with misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories and increasingly sophisticated AI-generated content. When adults struggle to distinguish truth from falsehood online, expecting children to do so is simply unrealistic.

Our own research at the Henry Jackson Society demonstrates the real-world consequences of growing up in algorithm-driven information environments. In a previous report examining the impact of online information on young people, more than 60 per cent of UK university students stated that content they had encountered online made them reluctant to vaccinate their future children with the MMR vaccine.

While this policy won’t impact them, their views illustrate the long-term consequences of prolonged exposure to online disinformation. What we are observing among today's university students is likely a preview of what awaits younger generations if nothing changes.

Of course, implementation will matter. The government's ability to enforce the policy effectively, provide meaningful alternatives for young people and penalise companies that deliberately fail to comply will be just as important as the legislation itself.

Some may argue that such a policy represents an unacceptable restriction on free speech. It is a line of attack that will undoubtedly resonate. But it is also wrong.

Allowing online abuse to flourish is not free speech. Allowing children to become victims of AI-generated deepfake pornography is not free speech. The United Kingdom already places limits on freedoms and liberties, including freedom of expression, when the potential harm is sufficiently severe. This principle is neither new nor controversial.

Even in the more complex cases, the free speech argument falls apart. Social media companies have been allowed to operate for far too long without meaningful oversight in the name of free speech. Yet much of what takes place on these platforms bears little resemblance to the traditional understanding of free expression. Algorithm-driven environments do not expose users to a healthy marketplace of competing ideas. Instead, they frequently trap people, particularly children, inside filter bubbles where disinformation and outrage are endlessly reinforced. The result is not a freer society. It is a more manipulated one.

Adults should remain free to make their own choices and exercise their right to free expression. Children, however, deserve a different standard. We recognise this basic fact every time we place restrictions on kids that do not apply to adults, like, for example, on the consumption of alcohol, gambling, driving, and many other activities.

Likewise, children deserve protection from technologies that are reshaping their childhoods, exposing them to abuse, and distorting their understanding of the world. That is not an attack on liberty. It is the duty of a serious government. And it is long overdue.

Another criticism may centre on how President Trump or major technology companies will respond to the ban, and what political or economic costs the UK may incur as a result. The fact that this is even considered relevant should concern us.

The UK government answers to British citizens, not Silicon Valley executives or foreign presidents. If the evidence shows that social media is harming children, the government's responsibility is to act. Whether that upsets technology companies or creates friction with allies abroad is secondary. The primary duty of any government is to protect its citizens, especially its most vulnerable ones. If that means upsetting Big Tech, then so be it.

____________________

Dr Helena Ivanov is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk