Australian social media ban for under-16s a ‘retrograde step’, UK charity says
The Molly Rose Foundation warned that banning children under 16 from social media was not the way to protect young people.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Australia’s plans to ban under-16s from social media is a “retrograde step” that would leave young people facing a “cliff edge of harm” when then turn 16, a UK charity has warned.
Andy Burrows, the chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said such bans undermined the aim of online safety regulation, which would force social media platforms to make their sites safe and age appropriate.
The foundation was set up by the family of Molly Russell, who ended her life aged 14 in 2017 after viewing harmful content on social media.
Mr Burrows’ comments come as the Australian Senate passed a social media ban for young children that will soon become a world-first law.
It will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars (£25 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said the ban is about making the “safety and mental health of our young people” a priority.
But Mr Burrows said the approach did not guarantee safety.
“Banning under-16s from social media is a retrograde step that would push risks and bad actors on to gaming and messaging services and leave young people at a cliff edge of harm when they turn 16,” he said.
“It is crucial the UK Government delivers strengthened legislation to make online platforms safe and age appropriate rather than bans that would erase the benefits of regulation and come with a slew of unintended consequences.
“Children should not be punished for the failures of tech platforms nor the delayed response from successive governments.
“Children’s safety deserves strong, effective solutions to complex problems, not knee-jerk responses that would do more harm than good.”
The UK is set to begin its regulation of social media platforms next year, when the Online Safety Act starts to come into force.
Under the new rules, platforms will be required to protect their users, and in particular children, from illegal and harmful material by finding and removing it, with large fines for those who do not comply.
However, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said last week that a ban on social media for under-16s in the UK was “on the table” if companies do not take action to protect children under the Online Safety Act.
Speaking to the Telegraph newspaper, Mr Kyle suggested the UK would have to move to “another level of regulation” if tech companies do not get together to enforce the Act.
The Technology Secretary said he did not want to pursue further law changes until he sees how the Online Safety Act works.