Skip to main content
On Air Now

Starmer tells social media companies ‘things will change’ on addictive features

The Government is considering new restrictions on social media use among young people, including limits on features designed to keep users engaged for longer.

Share

Starmer tells social media companies ‘things will change’ on addictive features
Starmer tells social media companies ‘things will change’ on addictive features. Picture: Adrian Dennis - WPA Pool/Getty Images

By Katy Dartford

Addictive social media features should not be allowed, the Prime Minister has said, warning the next generation would not forgive the Government if it did not act.

Listen to this article

Loading audio...

Sir Keir Starmer signalled his Government was preparing to take action to curb functions that keep young people hooked on social media.

That could see an end to features such as infinite scrolling or "streaks" that reward daily use of an app.

Arguing such features "shouldn't be permitted", Sir Keir said: "This is the platforms trying to get children to stay on for longer, to get addicted. I can't see that there's a case for that, and therefore I can see we're going to have to act."

The Government has faced calls to ban social media use for under-16s outright, and is currently consulting on such a proposal along with other restrictions.

Read More: The courts have delivered their verdict on Big Tech – now we must respond

Read More: Police arrest Palestine Action supporters outside Met headquarters

A photograph taken during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 19, 2025, shows the logo of Meta
A photograph taken during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 19, 2025, shows the logo of Meta. Picture: Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images

The Prime Minister said he was "open-minded" about a ban, but was clear that things would change.

He told the Sunday Mirror: "We'll go through the consultation, but I think I'll be absolutely clear things will not stay as they are.

"This is going to change. I don't think the next generation would forgive us if we didn't act now."

His comments come days after a landmark court case in the United States that saw a jury find Meta and Google liable for a woman's childhood social media addiction.

In a potentially precedent-setting decision, the jury in California recommended the 20-year-old plaintiff be awarded six million dollars (£4.4 million) in damages.

Both Meta and Google plan to appeal, but the Prime Minister said the decision could mark "a turning point" leading to "much stricter content restriction".

A Government source said: "Nothing is off the table when it comes to protecting children online.

"We've shown we are prepared to take action. The PM stood up for the vulnerable against Grok and won that battle.

"We've got further to go, but we won't let parents face this battle alone, we are on their side."

Sir Keir himself delivered a similar message on a visit to a school in south-east London on Friday, telling parents he was ready for a battle with tech companies over children's screen time and social media use.

He told parents: "They want more children to spend more time online and we've got to fight them and be clear whose side we're on here."

Governments around the world are weighing up whether to ban social media for young people.
Governments around the world are weighing up whether to ban social media for young people. Picture: Getty

The Prime Minister's warning comes after former minister Josh Simons said politicians should not be let "off the hook" for improving regulation of social media.

Mr Simons, who used to work on Meta's AI ethics team, said the US ruling should "terrify" tech chiefs.

He added: "I think it was so obvious to me that when you build a set of AI systems to maximise things like clicks and likes and shares and angry faces, that what you're doing is designing AI to addict people".

The former minister, who spent three years working for Meta and testified in the case, told the BBC he had quit the company because his team's recommendations were not being followed.

"Every time a decision was made, it seemed like the opposite of what they would need to do to think about these addictive harms".

He said the only real conclusion was that "they weren't serious," and that "revenue was more important than taking responsibility for those harms".