Key facts
- Keir Starmer announced a social media ban for under-16s before his resignation.
- The implementation of the ban, including defining 'social media,' falls to incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
- The government is struggling to define 'social media' as it is not a regulated term under the Online Safety Act.
- Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube are confirmed to be included, but the criteria for inclusion remain broad.
- Canada's approach of allowing platforms to prove adequate safeguards was rejected by the current government.
- There are concerns that children may circumvent the ban, potentially reducing their protection under existing laws.
As Keir Starmer prepares to step down as prime minister, he is leaving his successor, Andy Burnham, with the challenging task of defining and implementing a ban on social media use for children under 16. Starmer's Tech Secretary, Liz Kendall, has provided some details on the policy, but significant questions remain, particularly regarding the definition of 'social media.'
The core difficulty lies in defining what constitutes 'social media' for regulatory purposes, as it is not a defined term within the existing Online Safety Act. While major platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube are confirmed to be included, the criteria for inclusion are broad, potentially encompassing a wide range of user-to-user services such as online marketplaces and dating apps. The government has indicated its definition will be inspired by Australia's approach, focusing on services that enable social interaction and utilize algorithms, but has yet to provide specific details on promised exemptions.
Tech lawyers are advising clients to remain cautious due to the lack of clarity and the need for coherent criteria that can withstand legal scrutiny. Unlike Canada's model, which allows for exemptions based on platforms demonstrating adequate safeguards for children, Kendall has ruled out similar workarounds, stating that services meeting the defined criteria will be prohibited for under-16s.
Furthermore, there is an acknowledgment from within the government that children may find ways to circumvent the ban, potentially using VPNs or other methods. The concern is that if children bypass the ban, they may not receive the intended protections under the Online Safety Act, as platforms might treat them as adults. This could paradoxically lead to under-16s being less protected online. The incoming Burnham government will face the complex task of navigating these challenges and steering the evolving online safety regime.