Sir Keir Starmer has launched one of the most sweeping crackdowns on online activity in British history, announcing plans to ban under-16s from ten major social media platforms, introduce curfews for older teenagers and potentially require facial scanning technology to enforce the rules.
The move, unveiled just days before the crucial Makerfield by-election, immediately prompted accusations of political opportunism, government overreach and double standards.
Under the proposals, children under 16 would be barred from accessing X, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, Twitch, Kick and Threads. Yet notably absent from the list is Bluesky, the rapidly growing social media platform widely regarded as the preferred destination for many Left-wing activists who abandoned X following Elon Musk’s takeover.
Critics have questioned why X, now one of the world’s largest free speech platforms, has been singled out while Bluesky appears untouched.
The plans go even further than Australia’s controversial social media restrictions. In addition to banning under-16s from major platforms, the Government intends to impose usage curfews on 16 and 17-year-olds, despite simultaneously pressing ahead with plans to give 16-year-olds the vote in General Elections.
Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott described the curfew proposals as “a joke”, highlighting the contradiction of treating teenagers as mature enough to help choose the government but apparently not mature enough to decide when they should log off social media.
The announcement has also raised serious questions about how ministers were able to analyse more than 100,000 consultation responses in barely two weeks before unveiling such far-reaching measures.
Even Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly tragically took her own life after viewing harmful online content, accused the Government of rushing policy for political reasons and warned against introducing measures that could later unravel.
Perhaps most controversially, ministers are reportedly considering the use of facial age-estimation technology and digital identification systems to verify users’ ages. Privacy campaigners have long warned that age-verification systems risk creating the infrastructure for widespread online surveillance while doing little to prevent determined young people from bypassing restrictions.
The Government insists the measures are necessary to protect children from harmful content, online bullying and addictive platform features. Few would dispute the importance of protecting young people online. The question increasingly being asked is whether ministers are using a legitimate concern to justify an unprecedented expansion of state power over how Britons communicate.
The reforms are expected to be introduced using powers already granted to ministers through existing legislation rather than through a brand-new Act of Parliament.
That concern was echoed by Claire Bullivant, Chief Executive of the Great British PAC.
“It is exactly the sort of issue the Great British PAC was created to address,” she said.
“Everyone wants children protected from genuine harm online. That is not the issue. The issue is how these powers are being exercised and expanded.
“The growing use of Henry VIII powers should concern all of us, regardless of our political views. Significant changes to our freedoms, privacy and ability to communicate online should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, not introduced through secondary legislation with limited debate and oversight.
“Many people supported reasonable measures aimed at tackling illegal content, protecting children and combating online crime. The concern is that once the machinery exists, future governments can use it for purposes never originally envisaged.
“Constitutional safeguards exist for a reason. Today it may be social media age restrictions. Tomorrow it could be something entirely different. Our focus should be on restoring proper parliamentary accountability and ensuring that no government, of any party, can make significant changes affecting fundamental freedoms without Parliament fully debating and approving them.”
For many observers, that may prove to be the central question raised by Starmer’s announcement.
This debate is no longer simply about social media. It is about who controls the digital public square, how much power governments should possess over online life, and whether ministers should be able to make major changes affecting millions of citizens without the full scrutiny of Parliament.
As Britain moves towards facial age checks, online curfews and social media bans, critics argue that the country may be witnessing yet another example of a Government that promised change but is increasingly comfortable accumulating powers for itself.
