‘Nothing is as bad as losing a child’: Grieving mothers warn delaying social media ban puts more kids at risk

The grieving parents vowed to take on Big Tech, saying it can’t hurt them as “nothing will ever be as bad walking in and seeing your lifeless child”.

It comes as the Government is currently exploring restricting social media to over 16s, asking children and adults their opinions as part of a three-month public consultation after Australia imposed the same ban last year.

But campaigners warn wasting time mulling over the policy risks kicking the can down the road, leading to further inaction while exposing more children to harmful content online.

Ruth Moss, whose daughter Sophie took her own life in 2014 aged 13, told LBC social media must be banned for under 16s without delay.

Sophie, who was already vulnerable when she got hold of a mobile phone at the age of 11, became exposed to everything from suicide instructions to violent pornographic material and dark images telling her “it’s better on the other side”.

“I remember just being completely horrified. Some of the things that she had on that and the imagery she saw on there, I, as an adult, found very distressing.

“Surely there should be some cheques and balances in there and there really weren't,” Ruth told LBC.

Read more: Lords-backed under-16 social media ban to be overturned as Labour prepares its own measures

Read more: Only 15% of children say social media ban would increase safety online

Ellen Roome, from Cheltenham, has been campaigning for better online protections for children ever since the death of her 14-year-old son Jools Sweeney in 2022.

She has never been given a clear answer about Jools’ death, but believes he could have died following a viral online challenge that went wrong.

Now, Ellen is part of a group of bereaved mothers taking TikTok to court over claims their children, none of whom presented with mental health issues, were exposed to extremely harmful content promoted and amplified by TikTok’s algorithms.

“In the inquest, there was nothing found offline, not one thing. Not bullying, not mental health issues, not one teacher, one friend, nobody thought there was an issue. So if there was nothing offline, what happened online?

“I know he used social media too much. It started in lockdown. He was an only child, so I thought that was his way of interacting with his friends.

“I honestly was naive to the harm, like, unfortunately, a lot of parents are.”

Fearful over the harmful content other young people are still exposed to years after their own childrens' deaths, Ellen and Ruth are warning inaction on a social media ban puts more young people at risk.

They say the three-month consultation period for could leave the process dragging on for too long and spark a potentially harmful delay.

“How long Is it going to take to review all of those pieces of information that come back in on that consultation? They can't cope when there's a backlog of passports, how on earth are they going to be able to deal with that, analyse it and then say what they can do from it?,” Ellen said.

Ruth said: “Legislation is painfully slow. It took seven years from Online Safety Act. It could take the same to get another amendment through.”

It comes as fears grow a proposed ban could be scrapped despite the proposal previously being backed in the House of Lords.

The Government is understood to be pushing for an amendment which would see kids blocked from “specified internet services” rather than a strict age limit for under-16s.

This could involve measures such as switching off addictive features on the apps and imposing a social media curfew.

However, both Ellen and Ruth were clear that there is not time to waste.

“While we're waiting for the good stuff to happen, we need to remove social media from children, stop the rot and then, put it back out there when it's safe to do so, as we would do with a faulty toy or anything else that harmed children.” Ruth said.

Ellen said: “If the social media companies can make it safe, we're not saying it has to go forever. If they get rid of these features and it's safe, then we'll consider giving it back. But at the moment, it's not a safe product.”

In a warning to Big Tech, Ellen said: “I've had the worst thing possible in my life that could happen to me, so I'm not scared at all. You can't hurt us anymore.

“Nothing will ever be as bad as losing a child and walking in and seeing your lifeless child. Whatever they do is never going to be as bad.”

“I don't have any other children I can save. I really do think this is about protecting other children. And I have always said if I can make something positive out of the loss of Jools, that's why I aim to do it."

Ruth warned that while the power of Big Tech is not to be underestimated, she is not scared of standing up the social media giants.

“The bottom line is, I've got evidence to show what Sophie looked at at the end of her life. It's not publicly desirable or in their best interest to come after me.”

They are far from the only mothers supporting an instant ban on social media platforms for under-16s.

In fact, a Mumsnet survey found 83% of parents support a ban on social media for under-16s, and 58% said they would be more likely to vote for a political party that pledged to implement such a ban.

However, not all campaigners are in support of the policy.

The NSPCC has warned that if the Government were to impose a blanket ban, it could push children to darker corners of the internet.

Sophie Thomhave-Lee, a spokesperson for the charity, told LBC: “We have to remember that social media isn't the only risky area in the online world. And we also think that ban would increase secrecy and heighten the risk.

”It would make children feel more worried about coming forward if they were concerned about something that was happening to them in the online world. But we do agree that the status quo isn't good enough and children currently are being left using the online spaces that expose them to unnecessary harm.”

Ged Flynn is the CEO of PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide, said: “There is no doubt that the online world can contain spaces that are deeply unsafe for vulnerable young people. Some content can actively encourage suicide or self-harm, which is every family’s worst nightmare when they are working hard to keep their children safe.

“We are not yet convinced that banning social media for under-16s is the right solution. What we urgently need to see is faster and stronger action from tech companies to address harmful content and the algorithms that can amplify it.

"Suicide remains the leading cause of death for people under 35 in the UK. Social media platforms and the wider tech industry have a responsibility to play their part in preventing harm and protecting young people.”

A Government spokesperson said: “The Technology Secretary has been clear that she wants to act decisively which is why we introduced new powers that will allow us to act swiftly on the outcomes of our consultation. We will be reporting back on this by the Summer.

“This is one of the most ambitious consultations in the world and includes a number of different options to keep children safer online. We know there are a range of different views on how to do this, which is why we must be guided by the evidence.”

For confidential support, call Samaritans on 116 123, visit samaritans.org or visit thecalmzone.net/get-support