A weakly defined social media ban could end in very public failure

Following the Government’s announcement of a social media ban for under-16s, as someone who works in age assurance, you might expect me to be cheering from the sidelines. I am not – at least, not yet.

The appetite for action is clear: the ‘Growing up in an online world’ consultation received 116,000 responses, only beaten by the responses to the equal civil marriage consultation over a decade ago. More than 4 in 5 parents said the risks of social media outweigh the benefits for their children, while 91% backed a minimum age of 16 for account holders. Ministers are right to have taken that seriously, but announcing a ban and implementing one in practice are very different things, and the wording is crucial.

When Australia introduced its landmark ban in December, platforms were required to take “reasonable steps” to keep children off their sites. Four months later, the Molly Rose Foundation found that more than three in five Australians under 16 were still active on social media.

According to research by Australian tech consultants KJR, of the ten platforms named in the legislation, only one requires an age check at sign-up. The others rely on algorithms to guess a user's age based on what they search for and who they follow. If the UK's legislation leans on similarly vague guidance, we risk ending up in the same place.

The most important thing the Government can do now is publish specific requirements showing what platforms must do to comply. Not "reasonable steps”, but a precise technical standard covering exactly how and when age must be verified.

The Prime Minister pointed to the progress already made under the Online Safety Act as evidence that this kind of regulation can work, and he’s right. The technology has been thoroughly road-tested at the 18+ threshold used in pornography regulation, where methods like email-based age checks as well as identity document scanning with a face match are both highly accurate and widely accepted. Applying it to a 16+ threshold is readily achievable but brings a few additional complexities which need to be thought through.

About 15% of 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK do not hold a passport, and while methods like email or facial age estimation are highly accurate, they are not perfect. Set the bar too high, and real 16-year-olds get blocked because they look young, for example. Set it too low and a few underage users may slip through. These are far from dealbreakers, however, and clear guidance on borderline cases and a functioning appeals process will give platforms the certainty they need to get it right.

Critics have suggested that the new restrictions will fail because children will simply use VPNs as a workaround. This, I believe, is less of a concern. Some children will try them, but research following the implementation of age checks for adult sites last July found that fewer than 10% of under-18s used them regularly.

Accessing a social media platform via a VPN will also certainly deliver a worse experience. An account routed through another country or an anonymous server will give you the wrong content, the wrong friend suggestions, the wrong everything – it won’t be appealing for most teenagers. The bigger risk is children moving to newer, less-regulated platforms with fewer protections than mainstream apps.

It is also worth being honest about what a blanket ban costs. Social media is where many young people find community, whether they are LGBTQ+, live in rural areas, or simply find face-to-face socialising difficult. The consultation found that nearly three-quarters (72%) of children worried about feeling left out. That deserves to be more than a footnote.

Two things will determine whether these restrictions work: requirements specific enough that platforms have certainty about what compliance looks like, and penalties serious enough to enforce it. Get both right, and the UK’s “Australia-plus” policy could be a template for the rest of the world. Drop the ball on either, and it will be seen as a flawed experiment that failed to protect our children from harm.

____________________

Andy Lulham is Chief Operating Officer at Verifymy.

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