The last few weeks and days have seen a sharp increase in calls for urgent action in the UK and internationally to stop children from being able to access social media. The House of Lords has voted in favour of a ban, and there have been strident calls both for and against it. Government ministers have indicated that they are sympathetic to the arguments for a ban for under-16s (similar to that now in effect in Australia), and said they will consult on the issue.
With such a heightened and urgent tone of debate, the Government’s decision to consult makes sense. It need not delay a decision for too long, but it is an opportunity for all of us to inform ourselves about the situation and encourage policies that have the best chance of benefiting children both now and long-term. Knee-jerk decisions made in the cauldron of a crisis rarely create good laws. But letting public health matters drift and getting mired in never-ending debates about the best way forward can allow harms to continue while commercial actors make big profits and delay efforts at regulation.
What matters now is that we debate this topic openly, informed by the best available evidence, independent of vested interests, really listening to children and young people as well as parents and those with professional expertise that can contribute to the vital decisions to come.
There’s a lot to consider. Keeping children away from social media might sound like a quick and easy way to turn around the rising tide of mental distress among young people and protect children from a wide range of online harms, but it’s unlikely to be quite so simple. Taking something away is one thing. But what are we going to replace it with? Proponents of a ban, such as US psychologist Jonathan Haidt, point out that declining mental wellbeing among younger generations is not just about the rise of addictive online content and algorithms, but the loss of physical space and freedom in childhood – with ever fewer places to play, busy roads, intimidating flags, and the ever-presence of adult supervision. Without safe alternatives, bans may simply push children into less regulated, less visible corners of the internet, where abuse and bullying can continue out of sight, rather than reducing harm.
If the online world isn’t safe for children, how are we going to make the real world safer and more welcoming? Exhorting parents to let their kids play out isn’t going to make much difference there. We need parks, playgrounds and public spaces that are accessible and safe, especially for girls and older teenagers, who are too often excluded or made to feel they don’t belong. We need to look at schools, at the teach-to-test culture, narrow curriculum, punitive behaviour and attendance policies, and look at how to give children a broader education that really prepares them for the future (including how to thrive in the digital world).
Childhood mental health problems disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged and marginalised children and young people. There is a steep social gradient to mental distress, born of the corrosive effects of poverty, poor housing, family stress, violence, oppression, and discrimination. Taking smartphones from children at the school gate and banning social media won’t turn that around. Nor will these measures address the additional losses that would face groups of children and young people, including LGBT+, disabled young people, and young carers, who may be more reliant on online spaces for connection and support.
Evidence about what is causing rising levels of mental distress among children and young people offers a much wider view of what’s going on. While the digital world is clearly implicated, it’s not alone, and its effects intermingle with wider social, economic and political forces.
Political and media debates about this topic rarely make much effort to hear from children and young people themselves. Claims are made by proponents and opponents of a ban, about what children want and think, suggesting wildly different views. By consulting on the issue, the UK Government has a chance to do this differently. It can seek young people’s views, free of commercial or campaigning interests, and really listen. It can take an open mind to listening to children and young people, about how their lives in the digital and real world intersect, and what would help them to enjoy childhood and prepare for their future. We could all benefit from asking these questions, while looking dispassionately at all the evidence we have available and what it says (and why).
Children’s mental health is not, of course, the only concern about the digital world. There are legitimate concerns also about cognitive development, physical health, the spread of racism and misogyny, online gambling, the rise of AI (including as a tool to manage our mental health) and much more besides. Much tougher regulation than the current Online Safety Act affords is clearly worth another look before we jump to age restrictions as a panacea for the more widespread harms that are being exposed as we learn more about how technology is developing and being used. This must also mean placing greater responsibility on technology companies themselves.
Whatever decisions are made, here in the UK and elsewhere in the world, this is a chance to reframe how we think about children’s mental health and what priority it’s given and to do so in a way that respects children’s rights to safety and participation. The Government could take this moment to consider how it can protect and promote the nation’s mental health long-term. Not offering sticking-plasters but taking sustained action to boost both current and future generations’ mental wellbeing. Not just taking more things away from children without giving something back. Tackling online harms, by one means or another, with bold and decisive action based on the best available evidence, is likely to be a start. But it must be matched by a deeper understanding of what is causing the rise in mental distress and a commitment to act on the evidence that unearths.
