This post was originally published on this site.
The House of Lords has backed a move to ban under-16s in the UK from social media platforms.
By 261 votes to 150, opposition peers voted to support a ban through an amendment to the government’s schools bill.
The government has indicated it will try to overturn the amendment in the Commons, whilst it holds its own consultation on a potential ban.
But this Commons vote could prove politically tricky for ministers, as some Labour MPs have said they also favour a ban for under-16s.
Political momentum at Westminster in favour of a ban has grown since Australia’s move last month to ban under-16s from 10 major platforms, with more than 60 Labour MPs recently joining the Conservative Party in urging a similar move.
However, others some campaigners and children’s charities have come out against the idea.
Under the amendment backed by peers, the government would get a year to decide which platforms should be unavailable to under-16s, with companies forced to put in place “highly effective” age checks to police access.
It was supported by Conservative, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers, as well as two from Labour.
Former Tory schools minister Lord Nash, one of those sponsoring the proposed change, said children’s use of social media was a “societal catastrophe” and a ban would give teenagers a “few more years to mature” before using the platforms.
He said there was “overwhelming” evidence about the damage caused by teenage social media use, arguing it was linked to mental health problems, online radicalisation and disruptive behaviour in classrooms.
He dismissed the government’s consultation as a “last-minute attempt to kick the can down the road”, adding: “What are we waiting for? We know our children are being harmed”.
Online safety campaigner Baroness Kidron, another peer supporting the ban, said she worried the government’s consultation would become the “playground of the tech lobbyist”.
“The government has shown it will only act under pressure, not principle,” she added.
However, other peers urged caution about the proposal, with Labour peer Lord Knight of Weymouth arguing it could push teenagers towards “less regulated platforms”.
He added that a blanket ban would also deprive children of the more positive aspects of social media, adding that a better approach was to “listen to young people” during the government consultation.
Several charities and campaign groups, including the NSPCC, have said a full ban risks “unintended consequences,” and have called instead for stronger enforcement of existing child safety rules.
Asked earlier whether it would support the Lords’ amendment, Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said: “Our position is clear. We won’t accept the amendment.
“This is an extremely complex issue. We believe the right thing to do is to gather the necessary evidence and insight before changing the law.”
The government consultation, which will run until the summer, will assess the merits of a ban for under-16s, as well as overnight curfews and actions to prevent “doom-scrolling”.
It will also look at whether more robust age checks could be implemented by social media firms, which could be forced to remove or limit features “which drive compulsive use of social media”.
The Liberal Democrats supported Lord Nash’s amendment after failing to win support for their own rival plan to restrict children’s social media use.
The party added that it would put pressure on the government to “come forward with concrete proposals for a workable plan”.
“While we may differ on the best approach, we believe there is a shared responsibility to act,” added education spokesperson Munira Wilson.
