Tech companies have treated children as data to be mined for far too long - our plan ensures this will never happen again

The digital age offers immense benefits for learning and connection, but it also exposes young people to addictive algorithms and harmful content. For too long, this issue has been kicked down the road. It is time for a smart, enforceable approach that prioritises child safety without cutting them off from vital learning resources and connection with friends and family.

As the reports come in that the Government is consulting on a possible social media ban for under 16s, we are calling for the minister to take stock of our proposal for a complete overhaul of online safety in the form of a film style rating system - a new framework fit for the digital age.

The current landscape simply does not have the safeguards in place to protect children. Big Tech companies have treated children as data to be mined rather than young people to be protected. To fix this, we need a system that parents already understand and trust. Since the 1980s, we have successfully used age classifications for films, toys and video games. It is time to apply that same logic to the apps on our phones.

Under our proposal, online harms would be restricted based on the specific risks they pose. A 13+ rating would be reserved only for child friendly platforms that do not have additive algorithms built into their code, or the capability to collect data from young people. A 16+ rating would be the default for any social media platform that utilises addictive algorithmic feeds designed to induce doom-scrolling, or that host inappropriate content. An adult only, 18+ rating, would be for platforms hosting extreme content, such as graphic violence or pornography would be strictly rated for adults only.

We know there is real momentum for change, but we have to get this right. So while we agree with the principle of the Conservative approach, we have real concerns that their proposals would see blanket restrictions on vast swathes of the internet that go beyond social media. A broad prohibition of online platforms for under-16s is a blunt instrument in a complex digital age - we need a plan that reflects the very real nuance.

Our harm-based approach would restrict damaging social media while still allowing children to use Wikipedia for schoolwork, or participate in the family group chat.

We need precision, not prohibition. Our plan ensures that young people can still use safe, useful tools for education and communication, while being shielded from the predatory design features that damage their wellbeing.

Crucially, this policy is designed to change how these platforms operate. By tying age ratings to the harmfulness of the content and design, we create a powerful commercial incentive for companies to clean up their act. Liberal Democrats have long called for big tech companies to remove addictive algorithms and data collection for their younger users - I believe this plan finally serves as the motivation they need.

All social media that use these irresponsible tactics on children, such as TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook will be set to a rating of 16+ as a default. If they want to be accessible to younger audiences, they will have to fundamentally rewrite their code. They must remove the addictive loops and toxic content. If they refuse, the regulator, Ofcom, will be handed the power to enforce age restrictions, issue fast-track fines and shut off access for non-compliance.

Importantly, this model is future-proof. As new dangers inevitably emerge - such as unsafe chatbots or AI-driven harms - they can be quickly categorised and rated. We need a safety framework that reflects the exponential innovation within the digital space. It is well past time we start holding these social media companies' feet to the fire. The message is simple: either clean up your act, or stay well away from our children.

Munira Wilson is the MP for Twickenham and Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Education, Children and Families.

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.