When governments know they need to do something but aren’t sure how, they use a certain type of political language. The UK’s Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, gave a version of it on Tuesday morning. She told Times Radio that she is still “genuinely open-minded” about what new rules about social media for kids under 16 should look like. It seems like a good idea. It also sounds like the government is buying time.
That’s not always a bad thing. The problem of how to control kids’ use of social media is really tough, and anyone who says it’s easy hasn’t really thought it through. She said that campaigners and families have different, sincere ideas about how to best protect kids. Phillipson agreed with this. That is true.
However, public pressure wasn’t the only thing that made the government make a firm promise. Olivia Bailey, the education minister, stood in the Commons late Monday night and told MPs that the government would not change “some form of age or functionality restrictions” for under-16s, no matter what the outcome of the consultation was. The words were important. After the House of Lords pushed back four times, the change from “may act” to “must act” became law. Peers, led by John Nash, who used to be the education minister, had been pushing for something more like a complete ban.
It’s easy to see why the comparison to Australia keeps coming up in these talks. Australia took a strong step last year when it banned all social media sites for kids younger than 16. It remains to be seen if it works in real life, but it gave governments like the UK’s a clear example to follow or argue against. Right now, Britain is playing it safe. Measures being thought about include making sure people are of legal age on social media sites, putting limits on gaming sites, and, most importantly, limiting AI chatbots. The last one isn’t getting much attention yet, but it should.
It seems like the emotional weight of this argument has changed a bit since Brianna Ghey’s death in 2023. Two teens killed 16-year-old Brianna. Since then, Esther Ghey, her mother, has become one of the most well-known people who want kids to have less access to inappropriate content online. In this type of policy debate, when a parent who has lost a child shows up, the conversation changes. This doesn’t always lead to clearer legislation, but it does make it harder to politically defend not doing anything.
Just two weeks ago, Keir Starmer met with executives from X, Meta, Snap, TikTok, and Google and told them straight out that changes had to be made right away. Still, it’s not clear what those talks led to. Tech companies have a long history of agreeing with what’s being said in rooms like that and then pushing hard against rules when the cameras are off.
Right now, what’s missing is the specifics—the kinds of details that set a political signal apart from a real policy. The government’s consultation is still getting responses, and officials are very clear that they haven’t thought ahead about what will happen. That most likely is true. Also, saying “we’re consulting” is now a reliable way to put off making tough choices without looking like you’re trying to avoid them.
As I watch this all play out, I can’t help but feel like Britain is in the middle of a real reckoning, one that most governments are still grappling with in real time. Things changed faster than the law. Even though that’s not a new idea, it’s still the main problem. The fact that Phillipson is open-minded could mean that he is honestly unsure of what to do, or it could mean that the government knows where it wants to go but isn’t ready to commit to the vehicle. Something is going to happen either way. She said that the shape is still being thought about.
