Key facts
- The UK is considering a social media ban for individuals under 16.
- Australia's ban, implemented in December, has shown limited success in reducing social media access among minors.
- France's Constitutional Council blocked a similar ban for under-15s, citing violations of children's rights.
- The UK government intends to use secondary legislation to enact its ban, potentially bypassing extensive parliamentary debate.
- Australia's approach requires platforms to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent account creation, allowing logged-out access.
- The UK may extend its net to include internet service providers, building on existing powers.
As the United Kingdom grapples with implementing a ban on social media for individuals under 16, the experiences of Australia and France offer valuable, albeit mixed, lessons. The policy, initially announced by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, now falls to his successor, Andy Burnham, who must determine its precise execution before its planned spring implementation.
Australia, which enacted the world's first ban for children in December, has seen limited success. Initial findings indicate a drop in account ownership among under-16s from 52.4% to 42.3%, but overall platform usage only decreased from 85.9% to 81.5%. Australia's approach requires platforms to make 'reasonable steps' to prevent account creation, but permits logged-out access, focusing on data harvesting risks associated with accounts.
France's attempt to ban social media for under-15s was recently blocked by the country's Constitutional Council. The council ruled that the ban disproportionately violated children's rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and communication. While the UK's unwritten constitution lacks a direct equivalent to France's judicial review mechanism, the ruling serves as a reminder of potential legal challenges.
The UK government plans to use secondary legislation to expedite the ban, a move intended to bypass extensive parliamentary debate. However, this approach may increase vulnerability to judicial review, potentially inviting challenges from tech companies and digital rights activists. Legal experts anticipate that broad regulatory discretion could lead to significant litigation.