When one of the world’s most powerful technology companies agrees to pay up to $18bn over claims that its platforms harmed children, governments everywhere should pay attention. Meta denies wrongdoing, but the scale of the settlement, and the changes agreed for Facebook and Instagram in the United States, should be a wake-up call for the UK.
Behind this settlement sits a set of design choices that shape children’s daily lives: endless algorithmic feeds and content loops engineered to hold attention. Meta may currently be the company in the dock, but the problem is far wider. Across social media, platforms have been built around engagement and profit at any expense, while the impact is felt in homes and classrooms as children’s wellbeing deteriorates.
Teachers are seeing these consequences every day: pupils arriving in school exhausted after nights broken by scrolling; struggling to concentrate; anxious about what has been said online; or exposed to content no child should have to process. Behaviour in the classroom is being shaped by platforms designed to hold attention, not protect wellbeing.
Meta’s newly announced measures off the back of the settlement are too little, too late. Only when faced with a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit has the company agreed to introduce default daily limits, night-time blocks, stronger age assurance and parental tools in the US. That is not moral leadership. It is damage limitation. The UK Government says it expects the same protections for young people here. But if a safeguard is necessary for a child in America, why is it not the minimum standard for children everywhere?
No one can seriously claim we do not know enough to act. In the UK, the Children’s Commissioner has warned that harmful algorithms can push children towards extremist, misogynistic and violent content. Recent concern over dangerous driving videos circulating after the A66 crash showed again how quickly harmful material spreads before platforms act. Big Tech’s Little Victims’ algorithm experiment exposed how children are pushed extreme content within three minutes of scrolling on social media. We should be outraged that children remain exposed while companies argue over compliance and lobby against government action while avoiding accountability.
This is where the technology debate must move beyond individual responsibility. Social media architecture is not neutral. It’s hundreds of deliberate choices that either amplify harm or reduce it. If platforms can optimise relentlessly for growth, they can also optimise for child safety.
Time and again, social media companies show they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. They have had years to redesign their products around children’s safety as bereaved parents and campaigners have fought for action, but the platforms have failed to act with the urgency required. That is why the UK Government’s commitment to raise the age of social media access to 16 needs to happen without delay. It shifts responsibility away from parents and educators and back onto the companies whose business models created these risks. But as children return to school this month after a summer of scrolling, there is still little clarity on when and how that promise will be delivered.
Other countries are moving. New Zealand is preparing legislation to restrict under-16s’ access to social media, with significant penalties for platforms that fail to meet their obligations. Australia has already changed the global debate by legislating for a higher minimum age. As that legislation moves into practice, it is providing valuable lessons on what robust enforcement needs to look like, including how strong age checks should work and how platforms can be held accountable when they fail to protect children.
In a recent speech by the President of the European Commission, the EU announced it intends to ban social media for under-13s and introduce restrictions for 13 to 15-year-olds – another sign that governments across the world are waking up to the harm social media is causing, with regulation and strict measures the only way to protect children from the unchecked power of Big Tech.
The measures proposed in Europe are an important step, but the UK has an opportunity to go further. Ministers must set out a clear timetable for raising the age of social media access to 16 and move at the pace children need. Safety-by-design standards and stronger protections are important, but they cannot substitute for decisive action on age of access. Another school year of delay would leave children exposed to products even the companies behind them cannot convincingly defend. Technology has transformed childhood. Regulation must now catch up and put children’s wellbeing ahead of Big Tech’s interests.
