The Prime Minister has already called for classes to be made free by telephone. Photo: DARREN STAPLES/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Rishi The iPhone buzzes in Sunak's pocket. Looking annoyed, the Prime Minister takes out his phone for the third time before continuing his monologue justifying the ban on smartphones in schools.
Sunak's video advocating for headteachers' powers to ban phones in classrooms has left a backlash. It leaves a lot to be desired, with one social media post calling it “GCSE drama.”
Undeterred, the Prime Minister is now preparing for the next act in his standoff over smartphones.< Advisers in No 10, led by deputy chief of staff Will Tanner, and officials in Michelle Donelan's Department of Science, Innovation and Technology are struggling to come up with new measures to make it harder for teenagers to view content on smartphones or access inappropriate posts on the web. -sites. social networks.
At the center of this crackdown are proposals to ban the sale of smartphones to under-16s in an effort to cut off young children's access to social media.
Civic activists supported these plans. Arabella Skinner, campaign director at Safescreens, called for “at a minimum, all sales, supplies and marketing of unrestricted smartphones and apps should be banned until children reach the end of Key Stage 4”, which is when they turn 16. .
However, some in the technology and telecommunications sector view the measures as a cynical attempt to win votes.
Talk of a smartphone ban is “pure electioneering” by the government, with “less life left than an 18-year-old's smartphone battery” teenager,” said one industry executive.
The issue has enormous public support.
Tens of thousands of parents have launched a viral anti-phone campaign as part of the Smartphone-Free Childhood movement.
p>
Esther Gay, the mother of murdered teenager Brianna, has passionately campaigned to government ministers for further controls to make it harder for teenagers to access harmful websites and called for phones to be made “child-safe”.
Politicians have seized on US academic Jonathan Haidt's new book, Generation Anxious, which blames the rise in touchscreen phones and big tech for the teenage mental health crisis of the past decade, leaving children addicted to endless scrolling and falling into rabbit holes. . depressive content.
Conservative MP Miriam Cates is leading a campaign in Parliament to take smartphones out of children's hands. “No sane society can allow this to continue,” she said in January.
The Internet Safety Act, the Conservatives' flagship internet legislation, is only a few months old.
But officials They are seriously considering new measures that could reassure parents and tighten the screws on tech companies that have failed to stop millions of people. children, even three-year-olds, from using their applications.
The first step is expected to be a consultation that will ask parents, campaigners and the industry to consider measures such as banning the sale of smartphones to children under 16 and whether access to social media should require parental permission. It will also question whether teens should have access to apps at all.
Private and back-channel discussions are underway with tech giants and industry experts to determine what can be done.
Industry body TechUK, which includes Facebook, Apple and Samsung, is negotiating a voluntary charter to address the government's concerns, but the wording has yet to be agreed.
While most companies remain publicly silent, The Telegraph understands The government's proposals met with resistance. More dramatic proposals could be discarded or softened.
A government spokesman said: “We do not comment on speculation. Our commitment to making the UK the safest place for children online is unwavering, as demonstrated by our landmark Online Safety Act.”
The source insisted the Government will not “shirk” from tackling Big Tech's problems to protect children.
It is understood the proposal to ban children under 16 from buying their own smartphone will be included in the final consultation, but industry sources say it will have little impact. Most children receive their first phone from their parents, and telephone contracts can no longer be signed by anyone under 18.
The sales cap will also upset the telecoms sector and phone makers as insiders fear they will face the cost of enforcing new rules they say address shortcomings Facebook and Instagram.
The government also wants to consult on the appropriate age for children to “access” social media, possibly moving it from 13 to 16 – a source said the word “ban” will almost certainly not appear in government language.
It's true that the minimum age for many social media apps is now typically 13 years old. WhatsApp recently lowered the minimum age from 16 to 13 in the UK, angering some government officials who were taken aback by the decision.
Another option being considered is the introduction of systems that would require parental approval for children to download social media apps. Similar rules went into effect in Florida under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Meta, which allows children as young as 13 to use most of its apps, told US politicians it would support a similar nationwide law requiring parental permission to access social media – as long as app store operators such as Apple and Google are held accountable. . to enforce it.
Arturo Behar, a former Facebook executive who has spoken out about the tech giant's approach to online safety, supports parental consent when children create accounts, but says that pressure “doesn't solve the problem “fundamental problems” that there are posts about self-harm, sexual content and stalking on the Internet.
The industry has been offered more attractive measures to address the problem, but these are expected to be abandoned following a backlash from US tech giants.
One proposal that was “issued and rejected” was that parents could receive alerts if their child searches for dangerous or violent posts on social media.
There were concerns that such alerts could open up an ethical minefield, even if this was the case. were technically feasible, such as who sets the alerts and whether doing so would violate the child's right to privacy.
More broadly, the government plans to ask whether parental safety tools that already exist on phones and in apps can be made clearer, which can be used to set screen time limits or block specific apps on children's phones.
There are suggestions that they can be standardized for different applications and devices. Ministers are also seeking more convincing evidence of the unofficial harm caused by social media and phones.
While much of the tech sector is concerned about the prospect of tighter regulation, Helen Burrows, director of policy at telecoms giant BT, told The Telegraph that if “current rules to protect children are not working, there may be a clearer age line around [social media].” Media] need access, and the best route is to consult with the government.”
Surprisingly, some government proposals have been met with reticence by online safety activists, who fear the measures may fall short.
p>The Molly Rose Foundation, a charity set up by Ian Russell – the father of a teenager who died after being self-harmed on social media – has questioned whether overly intrusive measures could cause friction between parents and children. Andy Burrows, a spokesman for the charity, called the proposals “bad and reactionary”.
Sir Peter Wanless, chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, wrote in The Times that blocking teenagers from the internet could lead to to “increased secrecy.”
The government's surprise attack on phones comes just months after the Internet Safety Bill came into force. The bill gives Ofcom the power to levy billions of pounds in fines for the failures of tech giants.
Next month, Ofcom plans to launch its own code of conduct for children, which will oblige tech companies to make children's lives safer. online experiences and ensure they are protected from self-harm and pornography.
Baroness Beban Kidron, one of the Internet Safety Act's most vocal supporters, says she is “fully supportive of people who say children don't need smartphones in elementary school,” adding that “the parents are right, the parents are disappointed.”
Recent data from Ofcom, the telecoms regulator, has only added fuel to the fire. Survey data found that a quarter of children aged three to four now have their own smartphone, and 51 per cent of children under 13 use some form of social media – despite being technically barred from accessing apps – allowing assume that any existing age verification simply does not work.
Although the crackdown has strong supporters, public opinion is fickle. For example, a third of parents told Ofcom they would allow their children to access a social media app before they reach the recommended age. A YouGov poll found Britons were split when it came to banning phones for under-16s, with 36% in favor and 38% against.
A government source insists now is the moment for “truly open conversation.” …a space to inform future political thinking.”
Ultimately, the outcome of this conversation may depend on Labor rather than the Conservatives. The opposition party is on track to take power in the upcoming election and has also backed calls for greater action.
A Labor Party spokesman said: “The government has since delayed publishing any further details about the social media ban or smartphones.” last year. We will consider any proposals aimed at keeping children safe online.”
Whoever is in power, a backlash against smartphones will lead nowhere.
How TikTok ate the children' brains Read more
Recent Comments