Sir Keir Starmer didn’t mince words when he sat down with the biggest names in social media this week. “Things cannot go on like this,” he told executives from Meta, Snap, Google, TikTok, and X gathered at Downing Street. It’s the kind of blunt opening that signals the government isn’t interested in corporate platitudes or incremental improvements. The message was clear: fix this, or we’ll fix it for you.
The meeting, which included high-ranking public policy figures like Meta’s Markus Reinisch and X’s Wifredo Fernandez, centred on one pressing question: how are these platforms actually keeping children safe? It’s not a new concern. Parents have been sounding alarms for years about social media’s impact on concentration, sleep, relationships, and how young people see the world. But the urgency feels different now. The government is actively consulting on whether to ban social media entirely for under-16s, following Australia’s lead with legislation introduced in December 2025.
The Case for Drastic Action
The political pressure is mounting. On Wednesday, UK MPs rejected calls for a ban on social media for under-16s for the second time, though not without controversy. Conservative education shadow Laura Trott was swift to criticise: “Labour MPs have once again failed parents and children.” The Liberal Democrats weren’t much happier, with Munira Wilson declaring, “The time for half-measures is over.”
What’s interesting is that even this parliamentary resistance hasn’t dampened government appetite for action. Ministers argued that an outright ban was premature, preferring instead to give themselves regulatory powers to introduce their own restrictions. That’s a deft political move, really. It looks tough while keeping options open.
Yet here’s where things get murky. Research from the Molly Rose Foundation, established by the family of 14-year-old Molly Russell who died by suicide in 2017 after viewing self-harm content on Instagram, found that over 60% of underage Australians are still using social media despite their ban. If Australia’s approach isn’t even working, what makes anyone think a UK ban would be different?
The Rhetoric-Action Gap
Andy Burrows, CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation, welcomed Starmer’s meeting but sounded a note of caution that feels earned. “Keir Starmer must turn his welcome rhetoric into action,” he said, specifically calling for commitments in the King’s Speech to a new Online Safety Act. Translation: we’ve heard the strong words before.
Prof Amy Orben, a digital mental health expert at Cambridge University, zeroed in on the real problem. It’s not just about access or screen time limits. It’s about the business models themselves. “Social media companies’ increasingly powerful algorithms have caused concern across the population,” she observed. Young people and parents describe struggling to disengage from the online world. That’s not a glitch. That’s a feature of how these platforms are designed to work.
The government has already received over 45,000 responses to its consultation, along with input from 80 organisations including schools and community groups. The consultation closes on 26 May. Ahead of the Downing Street meeting, Number 10 noted that some companies had already made moves like disabling auto-play by default for children and giving parents more control over screen time. It’s something, but it reads more like damage control than systemic change.
What’s Really at Stake
Prof Gina Neff from Cambridge University’s Minderba Centre for Technology and Democracy observed that this meeting allows the government to appear “on the front foot” on the issue. She added a geopolitical layer worth considering: “This is also letting the government stay strong on online harms in a moment where there’s been changing geopolitical pressures on the government to be easy on US companies.”
That’s the real tension here. Most of these platforms are American-owned. There’s political weight behind appearing tough on them without actually antagonising powerful Silicon Valley interests. A regulatory framework that looks strict but leaves room for negotiation might be the path of least resistance.
The consultation is still open, and the government has signalled it’s considering age restrictions on gaming sites and AI chatbots too. But the core question remains unresolved: are we trying to regulate Technology companies into being safer, or are we trying to protect children from a business model that fundamentally profits from engagement and data extraction?
Starmer’s firmness at this week’s meeting feels refreshing after years of toothless promises from both politicians and platforms. But promises made in Downing Street meetings rarely translate into the sweeping change they sound like in the moment. The real test will come when the consultation ends and the government actually has to choose between strong regulation and corporate cooperation. That’s when we’ll know if “things cannot go on like this” was a declaration of intent or just another politician’s pressure tactic.
