Social media

Back in January, I voted for a Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to restrict social media access for under-16s. After a bit of to-ing and fro-ing the amendment was withdrawn, but only because the government had agreed to do it. Now that Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has announced she’s going to get on with it, I’m beginning to have second thoughts. I had persuaded myself that it would mean fewer restrictions for adult users, given that the most persuasive argument for censoring social media is to protect children from harm. But in retrospect that was naive.

In 2023, Lindsay Clancy, a former labor-and-delivery nurse from Duxbury, Massachusetts, strangled her three children to death with exercise resistance bands in the basement of the family home. She then cut her wrists and neck and jumped from a second-story window, an act that left her paralyzed from the waist down. Her murder trial opened in Plymouth Superior Court in July and is expected to run for six to eight weeks.  Both sides agree Clancy killed five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan. What is contested is whether she should be held responsible.

Labour came to power in 2024 with five stated missions: to improve economic growth, the NHS, street safety, clean energy and the distribution of opportunity. If Keir Starmer had been honest about his plans, he would have pledged just one – restricting access to social media. This is the goal the government has pursued obsessively. Starmer turned to it as his premiership collapsed around him, imposing a social media ban for under-16s. As Andy Burnham seizes the reins, he will have to grapple with divisions in his party over defence and welfare – but his MPs remain united in their crusade against so-called online harms.

A new study has found that smartphones are a likely cause of falling American birth rates. Economists Caitlin K. Myers and Ezekiel Hooper tracked the rollout of the iPhone across the country and found that the more people used smartphones, the further birth rates fell. This was especially true for the youngest cohort of women. Between 2007 and 2011, use of the iPhone was correlated with between 33 to 52 percent of America’s fertility decline. There’s been a lot of discussion about smartphones and falling fertility rates lately. Most arguments go something like this: smartphones and social media are linked to rising rates of anxiety and depression, less sex and less in-person socializing.

I’ve spent the last few days composing a response to the government’s consultation on whether to introduce a statutory minimum age for sites like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. The consultation, announced on 19 January, was intended to spike the guns of Lord Nash, a Conservative peer who’d proposed an amendment to the Schools Bill banning under-16s from social media. It didn’t work and his amendment was carried two days later, although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after the government tabled its own amendment pledging to impose some kind of ban regardless.

"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." That old saw is now hopelessly out of date. These days, an apparent malicious falsehood can become global news in a matter of seconds, especially if it contains suggestions that pants might have come off. Human beings love to share shocking gossip, and internet technology means that we can do so at terrifying speed and scale. Social media now resembles the lower-rent tabloids of old, rife with fantastical pieces about aliens or sex slaves and the occult Take, for instance, the incredible tale of the feline JPMorgan executive who "sexually harassed" a junior male staff member.