When will newspapers get off the fence and support a social media ban for under-16s?
Opinion
With the bans on smoking in public places and not wearing a seatbelt, the Daily Mail found itself on the wrong side of history. Perhaps it’s why it has taken a more cautionary approach to a possible social media ban for under-16s, writes Ray Snoddy.
On policy issues, the Daily Mail can be a bellwether, at least for its socially conservative readers.
On the issue of introducing bans on social media use for under-16-year-olds, however, the Daily Mail is not exactly leading but is split down the middle in interesting ways.
The paper was happy yesterday to highlight, as the Government’s national consultation on the issue closes, a survey showing that parents believe online platforms are the biggest threat to children’s wellbeing.
The survey “paints a stark picture of the impact on families” with teenagers being exposed to grooming and sexual exploitation, as well as violent content and videos promoting self-harm.
In the past, the Daily Mail has also given extensive coverage to young people who have taken their own lives after engaging with social media, including girls such as Molly Russell.
Obviously, those are all very bad things.
Yet the Daily Mail can’t quite bring itself to call for an outright ban and instead performs a neat pirouette.
The Daily Mail has ‘strong reservations about curbs and restrictions that affect personal freedoms’.
However, the paper goes on to say that the tech giants have been given every opportunity to get their house in order.
“If they find themselves at the wrong end of some very tough legislation, they will only have themselves to blame,” the paper argues, without managing to say what it actually thinks while happily shifting the blame and the responsibility onto the tech giants.
Perhaps such caution is due to the complexity of the issues involved. Or maybe, for a change, the Daily Mail has looked back at its past record of railing against the “nanny state” when similar policies were introduced, and is now being more cautious.
The Daily Mail opposed the introduction of mandatory seat belt legislation and smoking bans in pubs and other enclosed public spaces on the grounds that they infringed individual freedom and personal liberty.
In both cases, the Mail found itself on the wrong side of history as opposition to seat belts rapidly fell away and support for pub and restaurant smoking bans rapidly climbed above 80%.
The Government has promised action before the end of the year, but so far, technology secretary Liz Kendall has not spelt out what that action will be.
The media, including the Daily Mail, have yet to reach a conclusive decision, although the Daily Mirror has given prominence to polls showing increasing support for a ban, while The Guardian has published opinion pieces arguing against a total ban on the grounds of the consequences.
Australia, where an under-16 ban is already in place, is cited on both sides of the argument: that Australia has gone ahead and done it, even as reports of Australian children finding a way around the ban call its effectiveness into question.
In a telling intervention, Ian Russell, who chairs the Molly Rose Foundation, an online safety charity, believes the Government should enforce existing laws rather than introduce “sledgehammer” measures such as bans.
Child safety charities think that the Government should require tech firms to align with the British Board of Film Classification and respect age ratings for their content.
Perhaps the strongest intervention as the consultation closed came from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which was the splash in yesterday’s Times.
In a report from the combined colleges, which could presage an eventual ban, social media was described as the new smoking.
The 22 Royal Colleges warned of an epidemic of harm to children “continuously exposed to hateful, addictive and grossly distressing content.”
Interestingly, they saw social media and smartphone use “ranks alongside smoking and wearing seat belts in cars as a unifying force for the medical profession.”
The tech giants will not like the reference to smoking following a recent California lawsuit, when a young woman successfully sued Meta and Facebook for her childhood addiction to social media.
It was described at the time as “a big tobacco moment” for big tech.
The Medical Colleges said there was an “overwhelming consensus” that there was a link between social media and physical and mental health problems, although direct causal connections had not been established.
The Times also gave up its Thunderer personal opinion column yesterday to Labour peer Luciana Berger, who has been campaigning to raise the threshold for harmful social media features to 16.
“Wes Streeting has spoken of a future written for us by tech moguls in Silicon Valley, and of the need to take the pen back – I agree,” Baroness Berger argues.
She went on to say that Andy Burnham and Angela Rayner have both indicated their support “for this vital issue.
She did not mention the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, although it is believed he may be preparing to pull off another U-turn – in this case, towards a hard-line ban.
With polling showing that 73% of Labour members and 75% of the general population are behind the under-16 ban, it looks as if momentum is clearly swinging in that direction.
“No ifs, no buts, we must get this job done,” Baroness Berger concludes.
There is clearly going to be a summer of political turmoil in the Labour Government, partly depending on the outcome of the Makerfield by-election.
Amid the likely chaos, there is a risk that social media legislation could be kicked down the road in favour of more pressing matters.
The issues are complicated, but action against the tech billionaires has already been delayed for far too long, and the media can play an important role in ensuring that something meaningful is done at last.
In particular, the media should press for a ban, even though some teenagers will initially see it as a challenge to circumvent the restrictions.
It will give parents and teachers a weapon, and it will be a step in the right direction toward taking control back from the billionaires of Silicon Valley.
The past is educational on seatbelts, tobacco and smoking in pubs and restaurants. Once something becomes law, it has an educational effect and, over time, slowly becomes the new normal as the benefits are seen.
This time, even the Daily Mail might come out unequivocally on the right side of history.
Raymond Snoddy is a media consultant, national newspaper columnist and former presenter of NewsWatch on BBC News. He writes for The Media Leader on Wednesdays — bookmark his column here.