Lisa Nandy’s suggestion that an Australian-style restriction on social media for under-16s would lead to prosecuting children is a distraction (Young people have faced ‘violent indifference’ for decades, Lisa Nandy says, 9 December). No one is calling for teenagers to be criminalised for using platforms designed to keep them hooked. The responsibility lies squarely with the tech companies that profit from exposing children to harm. Why does the government still allow systems that erode childhood for commercial gain?
Teachers and parents witness the fallout daily: pupils too anxious and distracted to learn, children awake into the night because notifications demand constant attention, bullying that never ends, and content that pushes young people to extremes. This is not poor parenting or teaching – it is caused by the exploitative business models at the core of these addictive platforms.
Despite what Nandy claims, three-quarters of the UK public support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. Parents don’t want “help navigating the online space”; they want action that tackles the source of harm.
Australia is showing what is possible by not succumbing to the pressures of big tech. The UK needs to follow its lead, and watch closely to learn from the ban’s implementation and enforcement so our children are protected by big tech’s exploitative systems. Raising the age of social media access from 13 to 16 is not optional – it is urgent.
Daniel Kebede
General secretary, National Education Union
