Young people throughout the UK have expressed their resistance to prohibiting teenagers from social media, claiming that such a policy is neither sensible nor efficient in addressing youth violence. They underlined that rather than complete prohibitions, stricter rules should give internet safety a top priority.
A youth committee concluded that rather than forbidding under-16s from accessing social media as Australia has done, a more sensible strategy would be to tighten laws stopping social media corporations from endorsing violent and unsuitable content.
The youth select committee Chair Wania Eshaal Ahmad said, “The probe has clarified that social media companies should do more to protect young people from violent and destructive information. Like in Australia, the committee thinks a social media ban is neither sensible nor workable. Tech companies should thus answer for internet safety instead.
Comprising 14–19-year-olds, the committee looked at written evidence from young people throughout the United Kingdom and professional opinions. Their paper underlined the advantages of being online—learning about the world and creating relationships—and the difficulty of an age ban is easily avoided. They also noted that social media provides young people with mental health support and creative expression. Hence, an absolute ban is more detrimental than beneficial.
How might the government include young people in policy decisions?
The committee pushed the government to involve young people in policymaking at every level, particularly those from underprivileged and underrepresented groups.
Noting, “We have heard little evidence that Ofcom has engaged young people on online safety,” they advised creating a youth advisory body inside Ofcom.
They also recommended the development of a consumer-facing online safety standards ranking, which would assess platforms on their efforts to educate consumers, reactivity to damaging material, and safety policies. This will offer customers a scorecard with unambiguous information regarding an online platform’s security. Such a grading system will enable consumers to choose which platforms they interact with with knowledge and inspire social media firms to compete on safety concerns instead of only interaction criteria.
Does the Online Safety Act sufficiently guard young people?
The committee voiced doubts about the strength of the Online Safety Act, declaring, “We are not persuaded that the Online Safety Act is robust enough to enforce minimum age limits on social media platforms and ensure children and young people will be protected from harmful content. “
They said Ofcom should send an annual report to Parliament evaluating whether the law sufficiently holds internet businesses accountable for offering secure online environments. The committee advised that more substantial clauses for monitoring algorithms that support harmful content should also be included in the Act to ensure that young users are not unintentionally exposed to damaging content.
How common is violence on social media?
According to a 2024 Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) poll including 10,000 young people aged 13 to 17, 70% of them have come across some violence on social media during the preceding 12 months. Only 6% of them, nevertheless, actively sought such material. More than half of the respondents claimed that the most often seen violent content was fights involving young people.
According to the same poll, sixteen percent of youngsters acknowledged having engaged in violent activities themselves. At the same time, one in five had been the victim of some violence in the past year.
The report also included studies showing that viewing online violence “can desensitise young people to violence, normalise aggressive behaviour, and, in some instances, lead to retaliatory violence.”
The committee advised that the government commission conduct more investigations to ascertain whether a causal link exists between social media exposure and youth violence to help develop the Online Safety Act. They also recommended that social media businesses have more open content filtering rules and enhance parental control features.
Do toxic influencers endanger young people?
The study also examined how influencers may disseminate negative ideas, especially about criminality, as a profitable career route for young people in economically challenging circumstances.
To young individuals worried about their prospects, the YEF observed that “influencers’ presentation of crime as a lucrative career option can seem enticing.” This is particularly troubling for people living in underprivileged neighborhoods where actual role models may be few.
The committee urged the government to work with social media firms to remove the harmful material produced by such influencers and guarantee they are not paid financially for endorsing illegal activity. They also recommended platforms to support good personalities who may act as role models for younger viewers and offer more instructional materials concerning the risks of crime and violence.
Should cell bans be used in educational environments?
On Wednesday, the chairman of Ofsted backed proposals for headteachers throughout England to forbid cell phones in their classrooms.
“Children’s developing brains should not be bombarded by non-human algorithms that might be preying upon them,” chief inspector of the schools watchdog, Marty’s Olive,r said. They should be outlawed as they are detrimental. Ofsted will help educational institutions to forbid cell phones.”
Oliver stressed that phone bans are already within schools’ power and reassured headteachers that Ofsted would support those implementing such policies. He related seeing schools in chaos from excessive cell phone use and noted, “Within days of banning phones, as hard as that is initially, you get an immediate sense of calmness across the school.”
Critics of a smartphone ban contend that phones may be valuable teaching aids when used sensibly. They also note that outlawing them could make it more difficult for students to contact their parents in an emergency. Supporters counter that the adverse effects of phone use—including cyberbullying and distraction—far exceed any advantages.
How is the government addressing internet safety?
Declaring, “The government’s position is clear: you have our full backing in ridding our classrooms of the disruption of phones,” the education secretary reiterated the government’s will to address the problem.
“We are delivering our plan for change to make our streets and online safety spaces safer for children,” a government spokesman said. The principal clauses of the web Safety intervention went into effect last week, mandating web providers to intervene to shield minors from criminal activities and illegal content found on their systems.”
The spokesman underlined that further security measures would be implemented in the summer to keep youngsters away from dangerous content, including violent materials and pornography.
As arguments continue, the focus stays on safeguarding youth and ensuring social media remains a place for learning and interaction instead of negative influence. Although outlawing teenagers from social media seems like a simple fix, the complexity of the digital world calls for a more sophisticated response, including stricter rules, better parental tools, and more responsibility from technology corporations. Online safety is still a top concern, but the best way to get at it is still under dispute.
Add a Comment