{"id":821469,"date":"2026-03-12T20:28:12","date_gmt":"2026-03-12T20:28:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/821469\/"},"modified":"2026-03-12T20:28:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T20:28:12","slug":"london-parents-react-parliamentary-downvote-for-under-16-social-media-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/821469\/","title":{"rendered":"London parents react: Parliamentary downvote for under-16 social media ban"},"content":{"rendered":"

London parents have reacted with concern to the MP\u2019s downvote on the under-16 social media ban.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Southwest Londoner spoke to parents in the Twickenham area following the parliamentary decision to vote down a ban on social media for children under the age of 16 on the 9th of March.<\/p>\n

While a ban could still be implemented, MPs voted against the proposal on Monday with a defeat of 307 to 173 votes in the House of Commons.<\/p>\n

Chloe, a 40-year-old mother to a 3-year-old, said: \u201cI\u2019m quite anxious about when my daughter gets to that age.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe screen time is obviously a bigger part of children\u2019s lives these days. <\/p>\n

\u201cWe restrict it as much as possible, but honestly, they change when they have a screen in front of them.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plea for age based social media restrictions in the UK follows the recent banning of online social media applications for under-16s in Australia.<\/a><\/p>\n

The consultation<\/a> looks at the potential online harms for children through exposure to damaging activity and content, stating: \u201cSome content is illegal, like child sexual abuse images. <\/p>\n

\u201cOther material might not be illegal but can still harm children; for example, the promotion of unhealthy body-image, eating disorders, self-harm and suicide.<\/p>\n

\u201cOr it may not be harmful because it is not age appropriate, for example, pornography, sexual content, nudity, and violent content. There are also risks from activity such as cyberbullying and harassment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Data released by the UK\u2019s communications regulator Ofcom<\/a> states that 32% of 8-17-year-olds have said they have seen something online which is worrying or hostile in the past 12 months, with the risk of exposure to harmful content increasing with age.<\/p>\n

The Molly Rose Foundation<\/a> is a UK-based charity created to tackle harmful content online and its accessibility to children.<\/p>\n

The Chief Executive of the foundation, Andy Burrows, provided a statement following the vote, which said: \u201cMPs have rejected the notion that we need to choose between the unacceptable status quo and a blanket ban on social media for under-16s.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can and must go further than a ban which would offer a false sense of safety to parents and do little to improve the safety of platforms young people use, leaving them at risk if they work around the ban and creating a cliff edge of harm when they turn 16.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe National Conversation is an opportunity to do much better and make safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms doing business in the UK. <\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Government legislates quickly and effectively to strengthen regulation, we can finally hold tech firms accountable for their flagrant disregard for safety.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two mothers, 59 and 60, spoke about their thoughts on the safety of social media for children, and said: \u201cIt\u2019s out of control \u2013 I guess the problem is the regulation of it, and the dangerous stuff.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou need the companies themselves to stop that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Barnardo\u2019s<\/a>, an established UK-based children\u2019s charity, released a statement in late January prior to the vote, and chief executive of Barnardo\u2019s Lynn Perry said: \u201cMaking the internet safer for children must be the government\u2019s priority \u2013 so we welcome this consultation into possible measures and the impact they will have.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile this is happening, it is vital that the flood of harmful content cannot be allowed to continue unchecked \u2013 we need to see urgent action on this. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe Online Safety Act places a clear legal obligation on social media companies to stop illegal content appearing on their platforms and to build services that are safe by default, rather than leaving children and parents to shoulder the risk.\u201d<\/p>\n

The debate called for urgent action; however, the CEO of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children<\/a> (NSPCC), Chris Sherwood\u00a0has put pressure on tech giants for continuing to allow for the dispersal of harmful content.<\/p>\n

They proposed an alternative route to a blanket ban with a three-step plan<\/a> \u2013 forcing under-13s off social media and therefore protecting 2.5 million children, stopping large tech firms from continuing to make algorithms in social media applications more addictive and using the force of law to protect children from creating, sharing and viewing damaging content. <\/p>\n

Sherwood said: \u201cTech companies continue to design social media products that knowingly put children and young people in harm\u2019s way. <\/p>\n

\u201cEnforcing their existing age restrictions would protect 2.5 million children today, without the need for any new legislation. Yet they continue to profit while families are left to pick up the pieces.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s why the Government must act now, to stand up to big tech and force companies to keep children safe online. Our three bold actions, which go further than a ban, go straight to the root of the problems too many children and families face.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe want the Government to commit to tackling these three big issues during the consultation \u2013 and then move quickly to put solutions into practice, so millions of children and young people feel the benefits in their daily lives.<\/p>\n

\u201cFailure would leave us stuck in the status quo, and at that point, a social media ban would be better than nothing. The Government has a chance to be more ambitious for the safety of our children and must grasp the opportunity with both hands\u201d.<\/p>\n

Olivia Bailey MP spoke on the ban, citing it as having possible secondary consequences in steering children toward using unregulated areas of the internet and potentially leaving them unprepared for the online world, according to Sky News.<\/a> <\/p>\n

Moreover, whilst the consensus for parents was a support for a ban, there were perspectives on what positives it can bring to young people, with Chloe saying: \u201cI think there can be positive accounts to follow, and there is a world where there\u2019s positive content.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet the prominent observation from parents focused more on education for children and parents.<\/p>\n

One parent said: \u201cI think there needs to be much more education for parents as well, so that we can be educated to help our children rather than just leaving it to society.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are pleas for a second attempt at making the bill pass, however, until both houses agree on a draft, it won\u2019t be made into a law. <\/p>\n

Featured Image Credit: Dan Irvine via Unsplash<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"London parents have reacted with concern to the MP\u2019s downvote on the under-16 social media ban. The Southwest…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":821470,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7757],"tags":[748,389,393,4884,257,3176,182,192645,16,236434,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-821469","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-london","8":"tag-britain","9":"tag-children","10":"tag-england","11":"tag-great-britain","12":"tag-london","13":"tag-parents","14":"tag-social-media","15":"tag-social-media-ban","16":"tag-uk","17":"tag-under-16s","18":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116218095532994655","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/821469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=821469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/821469\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/821470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=821469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=821469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=821469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}