Madison Burgess
A ban on social media for under-16s has been rejected by MPs in the UK.
Social media has always been a divisive subject, especially for parents who need to make the important decision of when to allow their children to have access to it.
As per the National Library of Medicine, the answer isn't an easy one - there is broad agreement among the scientific community that social media has the potential to both benefit and harm children and adolescents.
The UK's proposed ban comes after Australia implemented a similar restriction on popular websites like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat at the end of last year.
Advert
Under cannot set up new accounts, and their existing profiles have been deactivated. The ban was the first of its kind and has been watched by other countries, including the UK.
Supporters of the Australian-style ban said parents are in 'an impossible position' over the online harms their children are being exposed to.
However, for now, any hopes of an under-16s restriction on this side of the pond have been firmly put on hold.
It was backed in the House of Lords, but defeated in the Commons.
MPs voted 307 to 173, majority 134, against the proposed change to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was brought forward by Conservative former minister Lord Nash.
Opponents and those against the ban argue that it could do more damage than good and drive teenagers into unregulated corners of the internet.
An article by the London School of Economics and Political Science says that there is lots of evidence for both the pros and the cons, which is why many researchers do not favour a simple ban.
The publication also reports that there is no evidence that bans work to make children’s lives better.
However, there has been mixed reaction to the divisive decision, with some people agreeing that it's the right decision and others pushing for a ban to still happen in the future.
As per The Guardian, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ education, children and families spokesperson, said: “The government’s failure to commit to a ban on harmful social media is simply not good enough - families need concrete assurances now.
“We need the government to confirm that their consultation will not result in yet more dither and delay.”
However, a ban could still come in the future after the Commons supported a Government bid to give additional powers to the Secretary of State.
Under the amendment in lieu, Science Secretary Liz Kendall could potentially 'restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chat bots'.
She could also limit children’s VPN use, restrict access to addictive features, and change the age of digital consent in the UK, education minister Olivia Bailey told MPs.
Lord Nash has since described the Commons’ vote as 'deeply disappointing' and pledged to do 'all that we can' to revive the amendment in the upper chamber.
Meanwhile, Bailey said a government consultation will now 'seek views to help shape our next steps'.
“Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s," the education minister said.
She added: “Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online.
“That is why, last week, the Government launched a consultation to seek views to help shape our next steps and ensure children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world.”
"The consultation will look at whether social media platforms should come with a minimum age requirement and whether platforms should switch off addictive features such as autoplay."