The UK’s social media ban isn’t the real story. Big Tech’s failure is

Ever since the UK announced plans to ban social media for under 16s, everyone seems to have picked a side. Some say it’s authoritarian, others say it won’t work and some have rejoiced and said that it’s overdue. But, through all that chatter, I can’t help feeling we’re all arguing about the wrong thing.

The real story here isn’t whether the UK is right to ban social media for young teenagers. The real story is why the UK has got to this point in the first place.

I’ll be honest: I never thought I’d find myself writing an article that even remotely supports a move like this. I’m chronically online. I have been since the late 1990s. I studied social media at university because I genuinely believed in what it could become. I’ve used it to campaign, to connect with people across the world and to advocate for causes that matter to me.

But I’m also the mum of a daughter who turns 10 in August. And if becoming a parent teaches you anything, it’s that, sometimes, you have to rethink positions you once held very strongly. Truth is, the social media I believed in simply doesn’t exist anymore.

Remember when Facebook was an actual social platform? You’d see photos from your cousin’s holiday, someone announcing they were engaged, a friend complaining about work and, maybe, the odd political argument. But, now, the algorithm is king because that’s what makes these companies money.

So now what you see is whatever the algorithm thinks will keep you scrolling. That’s how social media stopped being social. Today it’s an attention economy and attention is the only currency that matters. The platforms might be free but we pay for them through our attention.

Facebook recently served me a video I’d never asked to see. It wasn’t from a page I follow or an interest I’d even ever interacted with. It simply appeared because the algorithm decided it was worth putting it in front of me.

The video showed people at a Raise the Flags demonstration chanting; “Let them drown in the Channel. Let them drown.” They were talking about migrants crossing the English Channel. It was revolting.

So why was Facebook showing me that video? The answer is simple. Outrage works, outrage keeps people watching, outrage generates comments  and outrage gets shared.

What really bothered me though wasn’t that I was served that video. It was wondering who else Facebook was serving it to. Imagine you’re 13 years old and you see one video like that, then another and another. How long until migrants are dehumanised?

Slowly, slowly, people stop looking like people. They become a problem, they become something to fear because that’s how dehumanisation works. Not all at once but one video, one comment at a time.

Ten years ago, I don’t believe that content would have survived on Facebook for very long. Today, it is served up by the algorithm because it’s engaging. It’s a design choice.

This is not some conspiracy theory. Countless Meta whistleblowers have come forward. Back in 2021, Frances Haugen leaked thousands of internal documents that clearly stated Meta’s algorithms prioritised engagement even when they amplified harmful content.

Remember when Facebook was an actual social platform?- Mel Hart

In the EU, the European Parliament has identified features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications and personalised recommendations as examples of addictive design that exploit psychological vulnerabilities, especially in children.

This is why I struggle to understand how people can argue that governments shouldn’t step in. You cannot leave social media companies to self-regulate. They had years since the cracks started to show to improve their moderation, to make their platforms safer for children and to prove that they could regulate themselves.

Instead, what happened is that these companies decided to gut their Trust and Safety departments. Figures disclosed to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner showed Meta cut its Trust and Safety workforce by 27.8% between March and December 2023 while continuing to operate at the same global scale. Since 2023, Meta has had countless rounds of layoffs.

The truth is that social media companies never cared about children. Let’s face it, they don’t care about anyone other than their shareholders and their stock price.

So this is not about living in a nanny state, this becomes a question of governments doing what is best for their country. Cigarettes are regulated, gambling is regulated, so why shouldn’t social media be when there are plenty of reports showing its harm?

As a mum, my biggest fear isn’t that my daughter will stumble across one bad video. It’s that she’ll grow up inside a system that quietly chips away at who she is.

Constant, subtle messages, every single day telling her she’s not good enough or pretty enough or intelligent enough.

And I’m worried about addiction, because, let’s face it, I am addicted to social media and I am an adult that knows exactly how these platforms work and I still fall for it.

So, when people tell parents they need to parent better, I can’t help wondering whether we’re expecting the impossible. No parent can compete with billion-dollar companies employing thousands of people whose job it is to keep users glued to a screen.

Do I think the UK’s proposal is perfect? No! I have genuine concerns about privacy. And I understand why people are worried about surveillance and age verification. Apart from that, Australia has already shown us that announcing a ban is one thing but enforcing it is another.

Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. But what moved the needle for me is that governments are finally challenging Big Tech and saying their product is not good enough to be used by children.

The European Union has already moved beyond studying the risks posed by social media platforms and is now actively enforcing regulations. Last year, it fined Meta €200 million under the Digital Markets Act.

The debate is coming, and we should be prepared for it, but the most important question remains: Have these companies done enough to earn our trust when it comes to protecting children? I believe the answer is no because when children’s safety and shareholder profits collide, profits tend to win.

Mel Hart is a writer with a focus on politics, human rights and equality.