Table of Contents
Dr Reuben Kirkham
Dr Reuben Kirkham is a director of the Free Speech Union of Australia, as well as being the director of the technology consultancy Legal Technologies. Before co-founding the Free Speech Union, Reuben was a computer science academic.
We’ve been here before. Last December, Australia launched a failed experiment which the UK is now seeking to replicate. Australia purported to ban children from social media, requiring social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that there were no under-16s on their platforms.
Most Australian children are still on social media. Even the eSafety Commissioner concedes that at least 70 per cent of the children are still on there – based on a survey of parents. The true figure is almost certainly higher: no children who circumvented the ban are going to tell their parents. This is unsurprising given the official government-funded study, used to recommend implementation methods, proposed systems that would literally let over 40 per cent of 10 year-olds through (a finding that the authors occluded in their report). The report was prepared by the UK-based Age Verification Providers Association, an industry body with a direct commercial interest in selling these systems. One imagines the UK Government is receiving similarly dubious advice. And then there are VPNs – allowing children to bypass age verification entirely by appearing to connect from a country without a ban.
From a child safety perspective, the failure of the Australian ban is a good thing. Social media platforms operate based on network effects. They persist because of the community that is there. In ordinary circumstances, this provides an incumbent advantage. But if the government succeeds in breaking these networks down, then under-16s are suddenly motivated to go elsewhere.
That ‘elsewhere’ could be a completely unregulated startup app or website with no safety measures whatsoever. Today, anyone (including a child) could even make their own social media platform – that just requires a little bit of tech know-how and a few conversations with Claude or another coding chatbot. After that, along with some QR codes handed out in school – and hey presto, you’ve got a completely unregulated anonymous forum, where bullies can go unpunished and privacy goes out the window.
If the children don’t do that, then it would be likely that platforms run by our adversaries will be used instead – which is both a privacy and a national security risk. Do we really want our children baring their souls to platforms run by the Russian Government? Do we want Russia to have endless kompromat, not just on our children, but whoever else’s personal information they choose to upload? Of course not. Yet that is where a successful ban on children accessing mainstream platforms risks ending up.
Then there is the legal problem. The UK’s Human Rights Act enshrines Article 10 of the ECHR, protecting freedom of expression for both children and adults. Australia currently has two legal challenges underway using a similar provision, namely the “implied freedom of political communication”. Something as blunt as a ban is unlikely to pass legal muster, especially when it is based on dubious evidence – in legal parlance, it would not be a proportionate means towards a legitimate aim. From a scientific perspective, there is evidence that social media has seriously harmed some children, but equally evidence that certain groups – such as those with certain disabilities – particularly benefit from using it. That is why organisations like the Royal Society for Blind Children have spoken out against the UK’s mooted ban. Even assuming that the government could safely make a social media ban work, then it is disproportionate to try to ban all children and all platforms.
The legal risk has forced Australia to rewrite its ‘ban’ already, quietly introducing regulations earlier this year to narrowly redefine social media platforms to those which have certain features (e.g., infinite scroll). Nor has the Australian eSafety Commissioner been able to take any enforcement action: for once this is not her fault, but reflects the inevitability of losing (after all, how can you measure whether a social media platform has done enough to comply?) One imagines that Keir Starmer – or whoever replaces him – will be on a similar journey soon enough. The UK has strong privacy laws, including Article 8 of the ECHR (which protects privacy), meaning there are more legal landmines than Australia.
The UK is repeating Australia’s mistakes. This is not to say that we should not be taking steps to protect children. We should be. But they need to be thought through and not be focused on (purportedly) banning platforms. The way to do that is to address the psychological tricks being used, such as endless push notifications, as well as offering effective parental controls. Barring platforms from using endless push notifications and other psychological tricks would benefit adults too, after all, subliminal messaging in TV adverts was banned for a similar reason. Such measures are unlikely to cause an exodus to unregulated platforms in response – thus avoiding the main risk of a ban.
Focusing on social media also misses the real issue, namely smartphones. The best thing is for children not to have smartphones at all. As devices, they are designed to be uniquely intrusive and attention-sapping. Banning smartphones does not involve taking children off social media. It just means they are using it under supervision on larger screens, without being constantly interrupted with endless notifications. This would also stop them running off to another hidden app without their parents knowing.
Unlike a social media ban, a smartphone ban can be effectively enforced. We already stop under-18-year-olds from buying alcohol and if they are seen drinking it in the street, anyway, the police will confiscate it. The same can be done for smartphones. That’s because it focuses upon physical objects, not websites and apps hosted in other countries. In contrast to a purported social media ‘ban’, it also protects children, rather than putting them at risk. And they can still carry ‘dumb phones’ to call home whenever they need to.
A sincere concern for children would have Keir Starmer banning smartphones for children, rather than purporting to ban social media. Whether this reflects obstinate incompetence or a deliberate assault on internet freedom, the outcome is the same: a ‘ban’ that is doomed to fail, likely at our children’s expense.
This article was originally published by the Daily Sceptic.
