UK urged to rethink socials ban after Australia scheme ‘fell apart in two weeks’

The under-16s social media ban that inspired countries across the globe – including the UK – to bring in similar measures has made little difference, an expert has claimed.

Australia blocked children and young teenagers from accessing 10 top social media sites in December last year.

The world-first move was intended to allow ‘children to have their childhood’ and ‘parents to have peace of mind’, according to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

It didn’t take long for figures in the UK to start agitating for something similar, and in March the government launched a consultation into the idea.

Then, on Monday morning, Sir Keir Starmer announced his response: a ban would be introduced as soon as next spring, along with a raft of other measures targeted at keeping children safe online.

But Prof Kathy Modecki, an academic at the University of Western Australia who is leading a large-scale study into the impact of the Australian ban, said the original scheme has long since lost its effectiveness.

She told Metro: ‘I hear from young people that the first two weeks was a bit of a puzzle – what’s going to happen, what’s this going to look like?

‘And then after two weeks, it was sort of like it never occurred.’

Dodging age verification measures ‘started as a game and now it’s not even a game’, she said, with kids using cat filters and drawing crude moustaches on their face to fool facial scans.

The UK government has said it will ask Ofcom to investigate highly effective age assurance (HEAA) systems to ensure its scheme does not meet the same fate.

Speaking to Metro on Monday, Online Safety Minister Kanishka Nurayan said: ‘If you get new technology to check ages better, we will include those.’

Until that point companies can use a variety of methods to verify ages, he said – such as facial recognition, checking official ID, and looking at how long a user’s account has existed.

Prof Modecki, who has researched children’s phone use for 15 years, said trying to stay ahead of technology in this space can be ‘whack-a-mole’.

More broadly, she questions the effectiveness of any all-out ban compared to forcing social media companies to act on removing inappropriate content from their platforms.

She said: ‘I’m hoping that the conversation is going to turn from looking at kids and their parents as mediators of this risk.

‘The companies themselves, who are serving up the risks, somehow are allowed to say, “We’ve done what we can. Oh, and we’re also going to be the ones to determine it’s safe.”

‘There’s no other area of our life where we would allow that.’

Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life after seeing harmful images online, has also said regulations should be tightened up instead of a full ban being introduced.

Prof Modecki argues that a ban shouldn’t be brought in just because social media companies have not been proactive enough in taking down harmful content from their sites – as the ban itself is not without risks.

She said: ‘Some young people do find social support, confirmation of identity, and health information, and they tend to be those who have less resources physically at home. So are they going to be sort of cut off from those spaces.’

Narayan said the government had concluded that the ‘overall sum of the downside was radically outweighing the opportunities’ of social media.

He said: ‘Of course there are some opportunities and benefits that social media has brought for young people and I’ve heard them across the country over the course of the last few months as well.

‘But the biggest thing I’ve heard is that young people and their families don’t feel they have control in whether they’re getting just the benefits and opportunities and not all the downsides and the risks.’

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology was contacted for comment.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.