How to make social media safer for children
www.nesta.org.uk/feature/policy-fix-podcast/how-to-make-social-media-safer-for-children/
www.nesta.org.uk/feature/policy-fix-podcast/how-to-make-social-media-safer-for-children/
Nesta is a research and innovation foundation. We apply our deep expertise in applied methods to design, test and scale solutions to some of the biggest challenges of our time, working across the innovation lifecycle.
0:00 [Hannah Perry]: So at the moment the challenge for parents is a combination of variable levels of awareness of what's available.
0:05: So what these tools are the ability to use them, the confidence to use them and then when you offset all of those different variables against the fact that um technology is constantly changing.
0:13: So those features and controls are changing across all of these different devices and apps. And then combine that with the fact that your child's behavior across however many children you have will also be constantly changing with every trend with every oh you know my mates have just downloaded this like that is a full-time job for a parent to stay on top of.
0:33 [Joe Owen]: The government has recently launched its consultation. The sort of eye-catching thing as you say in that was setting a minimum age essentially banning social media for kids. That's what the Australian government has done. Tony do you think we should just ban it?
0:47 [Tony Curzon Price]: I I think that um we should think of it in a product regulation mindset, right? So, uh cars, they're extraordinarily dangerous. We have a lot of product regulation around them. We don't go around talking about banning banning cars. We go around talking about making them safe.
1:10 [Joe Owen]: Hi, welcome to Policy Fix by Nester, the Research and Innovation Foundation. I'm Joe Owen. Every week we will take a policy problem and sit down with a couple of experts and look at the options for how to fix it. If you enjoy, please do subscribe wherever you get your podcast and share with the policy nerds in your life.
1:29: It's been a long time since social media was new, but in the UK and internationally, there's an increased focus on the problems caused by the algorithmic addictiveness, in particular for kids. Joining me today to talk about that question, how to regulate social media for children, are two experts who've thought about this question deeply. Tony Kerszen Price, an economist and policy fellow at Nester and Hannah Perry, a director at Demos, where she's leading work on how to clean up our increasingly messy information environment. Tony, Hannah, welcome.
1:57 [Hannah Perry / Tony Curzon Price]: [Greeting/Acknowledgment]
1:58 [Joe Owen]: Hannah, I want to open with you to ask you to help us set the scene a little bit. When I was growing up, the moral panic, at least from my mom, was video games and the impact that would have on kids. Adults have always worried about the information that kids are putting in to their brains. Uh it was probably television before it was video games etc etc.
2:16 [Joe Owen]: What is different about social media and the particular moment that we are in now?
2:21 [Hannah Perry]: So I think the moment that we're in now is one that I'd describe as a moment of desperation um for parents and those who work with children. The legislation and the enforcement of that legislation on social media is not strong enough. It's too timid. It's too slow. Um and the culture surrounding the excessive use of social media um is too permissive, too passive.
2:40: So it's that combination of legislation, slow enforcement, permissive culture that's not preventing children from being exposed to content and displaying behaviors that in relation to that technology in their phones that I think parents and other trusted adults just can't manage on their own.
2:58: And I think when we talk about moral panics, it typically describes a scenario where we're overly attributing a a causal relationship between that media um and negative outcomes in a way that prevents us from seeing other causes. I don't think that's what's happening here. Like I know that there are there's a lack of definitive evidence um around the cause of the relationship between all social media and well-being. there's a lack of RCTs and other experiments, but I don't think that means that we should be disregarding the experience of parents and children who are telling us what their experiences are.
3:33: Um, and there's plenty of evidence for that cuz I I was looking through the numbers for this. Um, and some of them are bonkers. I was looking through the numbers of, uh, the social media use in kids and phone use.
3:45 [Joe Owen]: One in five kids aged 3 to five have a phone, uh, which is terrifying. Uh, 95% of 13 to 15 year olds have got a social media profile. So we know the sort of use is really widespread, but what what are the sort of emer what are the bits of emerging evidence that worry you the most on the sort of harm?
4:03 [Hannah Perry]: So I probably start by pointing to and this is really sad but the deaths of children. Um so when you look at an individual level individual cases normally when a child dies from the use of a particular toy or product that's normally enough to take a product off the shelf. Um, we've got a number of brewery families talking about the relationship between their child's death and their use of social media. And I think that's the that's where we should start here.
4:29: Um, but when you're moving to a population level, so away from those individual stories and case studies, the fact that we have 46% of children, 9 to 16 year olds, saying that they continue scrolling gaming even when they're not enjoying it. um that you have 40% of children turning down real world social opportunities in order to stay on social media. Displacing activity despite the fact that they're not enjoying what they're doing to me suggests that this isn't something that children are always choosing to do even when they don't want to.
5:02 [Tony Curzon Price]: Tony, can I can I just I I just wanted to jump in on this point about causality because I it is at least in the kind of economics and technical literature on this one of the big things which is show me causality now and and people like Jonathan hate have obviously done this very big piece of work very uh uh uh the uh on social social media in which they have a lot of correlation.
5:23: So they have this correlation add lots and lots of correlations. So for example uh post 2012 dramatic increase in um uh teenage girl mental health issues. And the hat's argument is essentially of the form, look, I'm not showing you causation. But what else happened apart from the introduction of the front-facing phone, the takeoff of Instagram and the self-image issues, right? So, so, so, and and of course, um, the social media companies jump on this and say, where's the cause? These are not causal studies.
6:06: So I just wanted to say to to my mind there are two really nice studies um which start to point towards causality and and so the first one is this it's not for teenagers it's for people just going to university but hold that it does give us really nice causality which was that Facebook rolled out uh in 2004 5 6 7 8 and it rolled out campus by campus in the US it part of the marketing strategy.
6:40 [Tony Curzon Price]: You had to have a .edu domain to get an account and it started at Harvard and it had the most you know it was part of the genius of it was it became status thing to have an account. So what someone did was to look at uh mental health referrals pre and post Facebook roll out as a natural experiment for saying okay well if it changes mental health then what did it do as you rolled out and indeed what you find is that there's a dramatic increase in mental health referrals for these 18 19 year olds as Facebook rolls out so so that's the first one which starts to feel like a causal study.
7:22 [Tony Curzon Price]: And then the second one is not a causal study. It's a it's a it's a reported uh valuation study, but it also gives starts to give us a sense that there truly is a problem. And this was a willingness to pay study again done in the US again done with university students in which they were asked uh a how much they would need to be paid to come off social media and the average came out you know I will come off social media but you'll have to pay me a lot I can't remember the exact number like $200 a month or something.
8:00: And then they were also asked how much would you need to be paid if everyone else comes off social media and there remarkably they said no no no we would pay for that outcome right so there was absolutely dramat so so what that started to show is that the people experiencing it themselves have this perception that a they're stuck in this system and b that they'd like to get out of it yeah they need help.
8:28 [Joe Owen]: So how did we get here Tony how how is there anything different in the way in which social media has evolved in comparison to other forms of media.
8:36 [Tony Curzon Price]: So I So how did we get here? I think that I think the number one thing uh is the attention harvesting business model, right? And the attention harvesting business model plus the logic the wonderful uh Corey Doctoro uh word the logic of inertification of platforms.
9:00: So the the story essentially is this it's now very familiar you provide a product which is very attractive and has many good things and certainly you know in uh for me uh in the you know late 2000s uh Facebook was that very very attractive thing. um you then gradually make it less and less more so so you do that you don't have a business model um your investors are behind you the next thing that you do is you say okay it's time to make a little bit of money how are we going to do that so you start uh you start pumping out uh uh advertisements fine most people think okay fine bit of ads for this stuff just fine.
9:49: And then of course as a business you have fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders who are saying, "Okay, you've got all this, you've got all that, you've captured all this attention. People are spending a lot of time here. You know who all their friends are. Fine, you're pumping out ads, but can't you do more?" You start thinking, "Okay, well, yes, I could do more. I can tweak the algorithm to make sure that uh they want to come back."
10:13 [Tony Curzon Price]: And this is where you start getting these remarkable stories. Um, for example, the the wonderful whistleblowing uh uh whistleblowing book from inside Facebook by Sarah Win Williams in which she describes some of you will remember sort of in the 2010 scandal in Australia where there's a leaked powerpoint deck where uh Facebook ad salespeople are saying, "Hey, we can tell you when a young woman deletes a selfie profile picture on Instagram. This is the moment to hit her with some beauty product ads, right?"
10:57: And uh Win Williams has this remarkable few pages in which she says she's in charge of uh international government relations at the time at Facebook and she says, "God, you know, we've got to deny this. We've got to do something. This is really bad." And what comes back from the team is, "Well, the trouble is it's true." Yeah.
11:15: So, so, so anyway, attention harvesting plus inification plus fiduciary duty to shareholders gets you to where we are. You know, the the big difference between um what we've done in the past with media in this country and what we did with cyerspace is deciding to grab it and to do something positive with it rather than letting it go.
11:41 [Joe Owen]: So we'll come back to the what could grabbing it and doing something positive with it look like. Before we start to talk through some of the sort of solutions and the options available, I just want to understand why the kind of current set of measures that we've got and the current safeguards that are in place feel so insufficient particularly for kids. Hannah.
12:03 [Hannah Perry]: So, I think to understand this, it's it's useful to think about a few different things that parents and and we as like humans need to like be really gripping and um being able to navigate this this digital environment. So, at the moment, the challenge for parents is a combination of variable levels of awareness of what's available. So what these tools are, the ability to use them, the confidence to use them, and then when you offset all of those different variables against the fact that um technology is constantly changing, so these features and controls are changing across all of these different devices and apps.
12:40: And then combine that with the fact that your child's behavior across however many children you have will also be constantly changing with every trend, with every, oh, you know, my mates have just downloaded this. like that is a full-time job for a parent to stay on top of all of those different um variables that are needed. And when you combine that with the fact that um digital media literacy is something that we've been very slow to invest in in this country, it it plays out is to just very variable levels and and and essentially parents just finding it really hard.
13:06: Um so and that's something that we've we've also noticed has an impact. If you look at a study that's been published earlier this year by DEIT on parents digital media literacy, you also see these differences in social digital inequalities. So parents that have their own kind of low device usage um where they lack confidence in in the digital world, they have a knock-on real difficulty in in navigating these different controls which obviously then has a knock-on impact on their kids. So it's something we need to take very seriously.
13:34 [Joe Owen]: the the changing environment point's really interesting and if you think about it from the government intervention perspective I mean the the online safety act is barely three years old which was supposed to be the big intervention and it's interesting that we're having this conversation now which feels so urgent and feel like it's been so untouched by government intervention but as I say this flagship bill came in 3 years ago and barely seems to have touched the sides on this issue um Hannah why has this bubbled back up the agenda And now then why having felt like we had legislated 3 years ago to solve the issue are we back feeling like it is so urgent and and something needs to happen right now.
14:14 [Hannah Perry]: I think I think it's bubbled up to the agenda now because of a confluence of different things that have happened. So firstly I think there was an incorrect assumption that the online safety act would be a silver bullet. I think when it was introduced there was a knowledge and understanding that it would need to be introduced in a phased way but also an expectation that that implementation there would be ways of strengthening aspects of it as it was introduced. Um, I'll come back to the weaknesses, but if you combine that phased approach, that slow implementation with the fact that there have been a number of parents, I've already pointed to just the really tragic instances that have occurred who have been coming together and campaigning and highlighting these issues together with other adults that are working with children um who are experiencing a a digital world that has got worse.
15:00: So the fact that there was so much in the online safety act that was predicated on an understanding that the terms of service that um tech companies would be using would be the minimum standard and that if anything they would get stronger and actually what's been happening is those terms of service have been weakened over time but also there are new technologies that are now being introduced um that have much lower standards and we haven't even started talking about AI chatbots yet.
15:28: I think if you combine that together with cultural influences, so we've had shows like Adolescence and more recently Molly Against the Machine, um combined with the fact that Australia has now gone for this ban, you've got all of this energy and effort and disappointment over the lack of impact of the online safety act.
15:43 [Hannah Perry]: Um combined with now what can feel like a really easy solution to just slamming the hammer and solving it all. So I think it's the coalescence of those different things which mean why it feels so precient in this moment.
15:57 [Joe Owen]: And the government has recently launched its consultation. The sort of eye-catching thing, as you say, in that was setting a minimum age, essentially banning social media for kids. That's what the Australian government has done. Tony, do you think we should just ban it?
16:09 [Tony Curzon Price]: Um, it I I can see the temptation and I can see that it's um it it you know, we've got a real problem for all the reasons that that that Hannah Hannah described. Uh but I think that we shouldn't do a blanket ban. Not saying that we shouldn't necessarily ban particular products and particular social media uh uh social media outlets. I I think that um we should think of it in a product regulation mindset.
16:41: Right? So uh cars are extraordinarily dangerous things. you're you're you know drive you have a projectile two-tonon projectile that can go to 100 miles an hour. They're extraordinarily dangerous. We have a lot of product regulation around them. We don't go around talking about banning banning cars. We go around talking about making them safe.
17:05 [Tony Curzon Price]: And I think that the so so the the downsides what are the downsides with the Australia solution? It seems to me that there are a number of unintended consequences. The the first I think one needs to I I really believe this is is that there's something potentially humanity enhancing in social media. Social media is about human connection. Human connections in general extraordinarily valuable.
17:34: It's also uh valuable often to the most to the to the to to very vulnerable groups and vulnerable children. And you know the typical example that you might think of is uh a a let let's think of the the gay child in a uh very uh uh conservative socially conservative environment. Finds it difficult to find their place. Terribly unhappy. finds a community online that that's lifeenhancing. It's something that it's liberating. It's about self-realization. It's all the rest. It doesn't need to be as dramatic as that. It could be someone with a talent for talent for art who finds that they can share this and get some feedback and all the rest of it.
18:25: I mean, you know, we wouldn't want to ban friendship, right? So we certainly don't we we want that there are there are enormously positive things.
18:35 [Tony Curzon Price]: I think the other the second so which would be a pity to be pity to to uh not be able to do good social media. The second thing I think is there's there's a real cut off problem which is okay you ban it. Um, and that means that at least those who haven't worked around it by getting VPNs and going to totally unregulated spaces, uh, those people, those children, they come to the age of 16, they're then launched into an adult world of social media and without having had social a training into this world. So that cut off problem is a real problem.
19:14: So I think that instead of saying let's just stop it, we should think about how do we make it good.
19:21 [Joe Owen]: I your point on cars is really interesting because like no government has a sort of zero harm approach to anything right because if you did there'd be all sorts of things that were banned um and it's sort of how do you get that balance right? Um Hannah, what do what do you think about a ban?
19:39 [Hannah Perry]: Uh I don't think we should ban social media. Um, I think there are other better solutions that have actually been long on the table um and available, but there just hasn't been the political will to implement them um to strengthen the online safety act or the uh the pace at Ofcom to um or the appetite to go further. Um so I think there are better solutions on the table. I also think there are new solutions that we could be finding and I think it's possible through the design of this consultation I think for us to be finding new solutions that could actually be based on the insights and experiences of of children and the needs that are highlighted through parents.
20:19: Um, I think just going back to why not a ban, there's a there's a some lessons that are already coming out of Australia, but also some polling that's been done in the UK that recognizes that even with a ban, I think there's a stat from Public First that suggests that 50% of parents would still evade a ban even if it was to come in, we know that children are likely to evade it, find ways of of evading it, or they get pushed onto more risky platforms.
20:41 [Hannah Perry]: And I think when I when you take a big zoom back and you think about the experiences that this generation of children have already had um I was a teacher during lockdown um and saw the impact of spaces being suddenly taken away from children in a way that didn't reflect their voices, didn't reflect their needs um and in a way that they didn't understand. And I think when you when you experiment in that way with children's day-to-day lives and the things that they really depend on, it really breaks trust. It really breaks relationships in a way that I think is far more negative and corrosive than um sadly like the existing social media environment would be which I think we can improve.
21:18 [Joe Owen]: The the argument against Bannon the kind of idea that um what you would do is end up pushing people into less regulated spaces or pushing kids into less regulated spaces that they might feel less willing to talk about what is happening on them because they know they're doing something that they shouldn't be seems quite compelling. But then you you sort of worry that any of the kind of quote unquote cuter solutions are also just for the birds. If what we're saying is even with a hard ban, it won't have the desired effect. Isn't that also a risk with any of the other sort of regulatory tweaks in the product regulation approach that you talked about, Tony?
21:58 [Tony Curzon Price]: Well, look, I I I think there are real limitations to product regulation uh and that approach for for for for some of the reasons that you describe. So, actually my the the thing that I'd really like to see is a public service uh a public service construction of a good alternative.
22:20 [Tony Curzon Price]: Now, the the why is that different from product regulation? So the style of regulation and the style of regulation which unfortunately was at its uh the height of its popularity when things like the online safety act or the digital markets unit were set up. The the the the style of regulation was one where you say okay the market has these problems but we're going to we're going to have particular rules. We're going to change incentives. We're going to sometimes things will be banned. We're going to make sure that we have paths to get information, but we're going to the our starting point is going to be what these shareholder uh uh fiduciary obligation companies do and then we're going to try and shape that.
23:08: So that because of the complexity, the sheer complexity of creating products is a really tough ask. There are so many ways in which you can continue to initify. So the the a better solution, it seems to me, is one in which a a a an organization with a clear purpose where that purpose might, for example, be educate, inform, entertain, um takes the problem of 7 to 12 year olds, 12 to 16 year olds, etc., etc., and says what is a product that is actually good?
23:51 [Tony Curzon Price]: And obviously making the product actually good has to navigate the problem that you highlight there which is it has to be edgy enough so that the children go don't go off uh vPNing into some nasty space but and and and it's very interesting talking to people who've tried doing this then and and who work a lot with children and children online. They say look pushing boundaries is what childhood is about. It's what it's what growing up is about. But the point is to create a space in which pushing those boundaries doesn't lead you immediately into the worst possible spaces uh that that that that that are out there.
24:32: And it's it so it's a it's a subtle job. It's a it's a it's a creative job, but it's one I'm very interested, Howard, here that you've been a teacher because it seems to me that it's one that teachers know very well that that uh you are there to teach children how to push boundaries and how to push them well.
24:52 [Joe Owen]: So, I want to um I want to stay with this theme of like what could a good radical alternative look like? Where we've got to I think is harm. Yes, ban doesn't feel like the right solution, but both of you seem optimistic that there are better alternatives. Hannah, what do you make of this proposal then for a sort of public service social media?
25:14 [Hannah Perry]: Um, I think it is very timely. Um, I think it reflects a lot of the ideas actually that Demos also put into the um BBC Charter renewal consultation submission and I know that others like the British Broadcasting Challenge have echoed similar. But we recommended that um the BBC reintroduced the purpose um that they had and was removed in 2016 around um delivering to the public the benefit of emerging comm's technologies but also infrastructure to enhance the quality and sovereignty of our democracy.
25:40: And that was a with a real recognition of the role of the BBC as a catalyst for the public service media ecosystem but also its history and heritage and investing in the the infrastructure that's needed to facilitate that ecosystem. Um the principles of the BBC that come back to universal access, I think also really push us to be thinking about what new ways um the BBC is a as a real kind of unique source of trustworthy information to so many people across the political divide.
26:06: We need to be thinking about where else the BBC needs to be. Um, and so I think also they also need to be thinking about AI um, and investing in new kinds of like open-source um, AI tools that could be um, available and experimented with not just by technologists at the BBC but also others who are working across public service media ecosystem. I think that's so important not not just for the digital sovereignty to use another like buzzword phrase of the year um, for the UK but also a phrase that we're using at Demos epistemic sovereignty. So our knowledge, our information um having greater independence from um the information environments that we've been so dependent on or um increasingly the the US social media spaces.
26:54: So I think that's really important. But the innovations that I'm also really excited about um are ones that aren't just thinking about national level social networks, public interest networks, but those that can be built in our local communities um that can be available to children um but also are associated with uh local news outlets.
27:10: So I've been really excited about the work that Bristol Cable is doing um with Newsm Foundation. So thinking about ways of building community around those sorts of new sources. Um I think the work that New Public is doing in the States where they're developing apps like Roundabout um thinking about new online digital spaces that are built in our locality and building those connections back um I think I think are really positive. Just moving back to the opportunities for the BBC, I think we also need to be thinking about what infrastructure um and the kinds of funding and support they would also need. Um they have to have adequate funding to be able to do that well. Um and they also need compute capacity and I think the government thinking about how they can enable that uh for the BBC as a catalyst. I think I hope to see in the white paper.
27:54 [Joe Owen]: Yeah. I just Tony I want to come back to you just briefly on this which is if if the BBC and the government said we're up for it, we're up for the challenge. We want to see if we can build something better with a public sort of service ethos at its heart. What do you think practically they should do in the upcoming charter renewal? What are you looking for? What would be success for you to show that they're taking this seriously?
28:18 [Tony Curzon Price]: I I mean I think that something I think that they should, you know, I think that our goal should be a 2028 launch of a BBC club kids social network. And I think it should be a national launch. I think it's feasible by 2028. I think one of the reasons for that is obviously uh children's online safety. I I'm very very sympathetic with everything Hannah says about the wider problem of epistemic security.
28:47: I think that children's online safety has, you know, is a is is is a pressing issue. it's urgent and everyone recognize it as recognizes it as being urgent and therefore is the thing that should be addressed fastest and first. I also think by the way that there's something very important about creating about the sorts of tastes that you develop for these things early on. I mean I think that it's you know you you it's it's like childhood food. It's like childhood TV programs.
29:18: I know, you know, I I grew up I grew up outside the UK. I I I grew up in France. I arrived in the UK as a uh as as a 10-year-old and the people around me would talk about Doctor Who. And I remember looking at Doctor Who and thinking, "This is utterly weird. I just don't understand why all of these people around me, all all of my all of my friends are so enthusiastic about it." Right?
29:50: had been fed on French television with its kind of uh uh uh uh you know cheap American series and etc etc. There's something there's something really fundamental about how um uh styles of communication, styles of um uh sensitivity are shaped in the early years of people's people's lives. And we have this enormous problem with uh digital literacy with epistemic security etc etc.
30:20: The long-term solution to that goes through mainstreaming the way in which education and taste formation in terms of um the the style the style that we like like the food that we uh that that we eat. Marmike by the way was exactly the same as Doctor Who from my point of view as a 10-year-old arriving. How could people want this stuff?
30:40 [Joe Owen]: I grew up in the UK and I never really understood Doctor Who either. Maybe I shouldn't. Uh, go ahead, Tate. Um, Hannah, what are the wider set of measures? We've talked about a sort of big play here from the BBC and government, but there's a whole host of other things that the government should be considering. What are they, do you think?
31:00 [Hannah Perry]: Um, so I I think it's right that we should be thinking about an array of solutions. Like there's there's not going to be one silver bullet here. And I think just the recognition that this is a complex problem that requires um solutions for a variety of needs I think should has to be the starting point. Um I think first I' I'd also just love to pause about the importance of this consultation because I think some people like which I fully understand have been quite frustrated by the creation of a consultation because there's a feeling that it delays things which are blindingly obvious that could have been done a year or two ago. um which I really do sympathize with because there are good solutions on the table already.
31:39: However, I think the fact that we're having this consultation now creates a space um firstly for for children to be a part of this conversation to be highlighting what are the benefits of social media that need to be protected and enhanced especially that could be carried over into new digital public spaces. Um but also that parents are having conversations with one another. And I think there's been a need for parents particularly in local areas to be able to come together to facilitate facilitate conversations about how they can shift the social norms in their environments in their relationships.
32:11: And I've I've been hearing incredible stories from MPs who are facilitating these conversations in the local communities where parents are suddenly coming together and realizing that actually if they strengthen their own relationships with one another, they could be creating safer offline spaces that they'd be more comfortable to be putting their their children through.
32:27: So just that was just my pause to say I think there's there's been a real benefit and I think we'll see other upsides from this consultation phase but other things that could be done um the online safety act network has put together a 10-point plan for things that could be improved with the existing online safety act which yes it has its weaknesses um but the things that they could be thinking about whether that's um really expanding and being very clear what is meant by safety by design.
32:56: there's an opportunity to um be amending the act to being very clear what is meant by safety by design and that's when you come back to these product design principles of of of what do we mean by safety and that then prevents these sorts of dangerous features being released onto the market.
33:13 [Tony Curzon Price]: Tony you I I mean I'm really no I I just totally agree with this point about the importance of conversations around this and I think that it's not only conversations between parents but it's conversations within families 100% and and I think that one of the things which um in a in a sense has happened is that um we've let the phones into the home and the phones have created a portal to a private to to a space which isn't which isn't discussed.
33:40: So whereas the television or the radio was very often something that was uh uh which the whole family uh uh uh uh had access to at the same time and therefore led to conversations and therefore of course back to this point about the importance in childhood of pushing boundaries.
34:00: What you had was a uh a a a situation in which, you know, a film which had some sex in it or some violence in it could lead to a conversation about what was going on or even to an explicit no, you can't watch this, get out just in order to make sure that these things are talked about that somehow or other a you know uh uh uh norms and ways of behavior around stuff which is difficult, which is on boundaries. All of that happened because of the technology and the nature of the technology here meant that it was taken away.
34:38 [Tony Curzon Price]: And one of the things I'm very keen on is um a notion that is part of the overall solution to how we create a more civilized cyber space is that actually um families ought to ought to have available to them a a a civil society layer which says actually all of your network traffic, all of the stuff that's coming in and going out is actually being uh it's being not surveiled but the nature of it, the nature of the sites etc. who is looking at what you're getting some degree of information back.
35:21: Now, there's a very tight line here between children feeling that this is an oppressive space and they have to find ways around it versus families being able to say, "Well, look, the negotiation with the teenager or the seven-year-old is, yes, you have a tablet. Yes, you have access to the Wi-Fi, but by the way, no one is going to actually snoop and look at what you're doing, but we are going to get automated reports back that say, "Wait, actually, perhaps you should have a uh a conversation about this is time to have a conversation about body, self-image, about things like this."
36:00: There are these are the sorts of uh uh uh non topdown solutions which we've got to put in place as infrastructure in order to create the space and the opportunity for conversations for mechanisms for transmission of norms and culture which the technology has displaced.
36:16 [Hannah Perry]: M kind of and I think it's really interesting that in Australia one of the evaluation indicators that um they're using at Stanford is this um criteria to to what extent the ban has resolved family conflict because as a recognition of of what as you say Tony that what social media has displaced and if um there are greater conversations um within families they're seeing that as a sign that this ban has been successful which I think really points to yeah some of the some of the challenges that we're trying to create.
36:46 [Hannah Perry]: Just one other thing that I think is just to add another bit of positivity in here is um the recommendations around the BBC taking on a stronger role on media literacy. That being something that is being proposed as a new purpose for the BBC, I think is also really exciting because I think what we need for not just legislation because I think strengthen legislation has to be a key part of this as well as investing in new digital spaces, but we need a social cultural norm shift.
37:12: And to facilitate that, we all need to be having media cultural stimulus that tells us stories that role models different ways in which we can have these sorts of conversations. And I think having other kinds of formats that can trigger those sorts of conversations throughout our media, throughout our BBC, I think is another really promising um feature that I hope I hope we're coming through.
37:29 [Joe Owen]: If if people listening to this were thinking these all sound like great ideas, what's the thing that I should be looking out for after the government consultation closes? Like what's the one or two concrete policies or decisions that you would hope the government would take? Can I sort of push you on what you think those specific things would be? Um Hannah, you first and then Tony.
37:51 [Hannah Perry]: So I think there's a difference between what I think it's likely to be versus what I hope to see. Um what I hope to see is the inclusion of AI chat bots um into the scope of the online safety act. I think I'm really pleased to see that AI chatbots have been included in the scope of the consultation. I think that's a really positive step. They're not included in in the scope with the Australia social media ban. And I think that is crucial because I think if we're thinking about taking away people's real life friends in digital spaces, we need to be thinking about the kind of sickopantic robot chat bots that people that children are making friends with in our current environment.
38:22 [Hannah Perry]: So looking to the next problem and be legislating around AI, I think is the thing that I really hope we see as a result of this consultation.
38:32 [Tony Curzon Price]: My my version is that I think what what I'd really like to see is a strong statement by the government to say the BBC needs to become the platform, not feed the platform. that it needs to hold the um hold the the the the the national conversation, not feed that conversation in into algorithms and into spaces that are controlled in a very different way.
39:04 [Tony Curzon Price]: And um I think a very important part of that very specifically is that throughout the 2010s BBC has been hampered by being told that it must not crowd out what the market can provide. I think what we've discovered in the 2010s is that what the market does provide online is toxic and that actually the last rule we want is one which says, "Oh no, BBC, don't go there. You're going to, you know, the the the the channel owners, the media owners, the platform owners are going to complain and say, "You're taking attention away from us. This could be provided by the market."
39:48: The fact is the market is not providing what we want. And I do hope that the new director general of the BBC as an ex Google uh employee understands this and knows that the role he's stepping into. It's a very different kind of role.
40:05 [Tony Curzon Price]: Clear sign from the government that we've changed our attitude towards what regulation in this space means.
40:15 [Joe Owen]: I'm going to close us out now and sort of zoom out slightly. We've been talking predominantly around kids, although notwithstanding some of the points are broader. But if I gave you cart blanch to say you can go in and tell Kier Starmer to do one thing to improve our increasingly broken information environment. What would your one thing for Kier Starma be? I picked on you first last time, Hannah, so I'm gonna pick on you first this time, Tony.
40:43 [Tony Curzon Price]: I would say launch a widespread program of experimentation of intervention in cyerspace with purpose and the purpose very clearly being educate, inform, entertain. do that in such so so that so that we have a counterweight to the profit purpose which is shaping our epistemic environment.
41:14 [Hannah Perry]: Hannah, I'm so pleased that you said that cuz now I can say something else but yes and um strengthen the online safety act so that our existing digital spaces um are designed for safety. So safety by design but also minimum standards for terms of service uh for social media so that we have a strong baseline that we are building up from and that it includes duties for AI chatbots.
41:37 [Tony Curzon Price / Hannah Perry]: Tony Hannah thank you so much. Thank you.
41:40 [Joe Owen]: If you enjoyed this episode please do like and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Nester is a research and innovation foundation. We are a charity and we are politically impartial and we design, test and scale solutions to society's biggest problems. If you'd like to find out more information, go to www.nesa.org.uk.
How to make social media safer for children
In this episode of the Policy Fix, we dig into what policymakers should do about social media and its effect on children.
Joining host Joe Owen are Hannah Perry, a former teacher and digital policy expert at the UK think tank Demos, and economist and policy fellow, Tony Curzon Price. They weigh the merits of radical intervention alongside regulatory and policy options.
We explore why existing legislation has failed to keep pace with the ‘attention harvesting’ business model that often prioritises shareholder profit over user safety. And our guests discuss the benefits and limitations of a blanket social media ban, such as the one introduced in Australia.
They consider additional regulatory and institutional options including strengthening the Online Safety Act, making sure that safety is built into mandatory standards and supporting the BBC to build its own public service social network.
Watch the full episode on Youtube or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Liked the conversation? Make sure to subscribe and leave a review.
0:00 [Hannah Perry]: So at the moment the challenge for parents is a combination of variable levels of awareness of what's available.
0:05: So what these tools are the ability to use them, the confidence to use them and then when you offset all of those different variables against the fact that um technology is constantly changing.
0:13: So those features and controls are changing across all of these different devices and apps. And then combine that with the fact that your child's behavior across however many children you have will also be constantly changing with every trend with every oh you know my mates have just downloaded this like that is a full-time job for a parent to stay on top of.
0:33 [Joe Owen]: The government has recently launched its consultation. The sort of eye-catching thing as you say in that was setting a minimum age essentially banning social media for kids. That's what the Australian government has done. Tony do you think we should just ban it?
0:47 [Tony Curzon Price]: I I think that um we should think of it in a product regulation mindset, right? So, uh cars, they're extraordinarily dangerous. We have a lot of product regulation around them. We don't go around talking about banning banning cars. We go around talking about making them safe.
1:10 [Joe Owen]: Hi, welcome to Policy Fix by Nester, the Research and Innovation Foundation. I'm Joe Owen. Every week we will take a policy problem and sit down with a couple of experts and look at the options for how to fix it. If you enjoy, please do subscribe wherever you get your podcast and share with the policy nerds in your life.
1:29: It's been a long time since social media was new, but in the UK and internationally, there's an increased focus on the problems caused by the algorithmic addictiveness, in particular for kids. Joining me today to talk about that question, how to regulate social media for children, are two experts who've thought about this question deeply. Tony Kerszen Price, an economist and policy fellow at Nester and Hannah Perry, a director at Demos, where she's leading work on how to clean up our increasingly messy information environment. Tony, Hannah, welcome.
1:57 [Hannah Perry / Tony Curzon Price]: [Greeting/Acknowledgment]
1:58 [Joe Owen]: Hannah, I want to open with you to ask you to help us set the scene a little bit. When I was growing up, the moral panic, at least from my mom, was video games and the impact that would have on kids. Adults have always worried about the information that kids are putting in to their brains. Uh it was probably television before it was video games etc etc.
2:16 [Joe Owen]: What is different about social media and the particular moment that we are in now?
2:21 [Hannah Perry]: So I think the moment that we're in now is one that I'd describe as a moment of desperation um for parents and those who work with children. The legislation and the enforcement of that legislation on social media is not strong enough. It's too timid. It's too slow. Um and the culture surrounding the excessive use of social media um is too permissive, too passive.
2:40: So it's that combination of legislation, slow enforcement, permissive culture that's not preventing children from being exposed to content and displaying behaviors that in relation to that technology in their phones that I think parents and other trusted adults just can't manage on their own.
2:58: And I think when we talk about moral panics, it typically describes a scenario where we're overly attributing a a causal relationship between that media um and negative outcomes in a way that prevents us from seeing other causes. I don't think that's what's happening here. Like I know that there are there's a lack of definitive evidence um around the cause of the relationship between all social media and well-being. there's a lack of RCTs and other experiments, but I don't think that means that we should be disregarding the experience of parents and children who are telling us what their experiences are.
3:33: Um, and there's plenty of evidence for that cuz I I was looking through the numbers for this. Um, and some of them are bonkers. I was looking through the numbers of, uh, the social media use in kids and phone use.
3:45 [Joe Owen]: One in five kids aged 3 to five have a phone, uh, which is terrifying. Uh, 95% of 13 to 15 year olds have got a social media profile. So we know the sort of use is really widespread, but what what are the sort of emer what are the bits of emerging evidence that worry you the most on the sort of harm?
4:03 [Hannah Perry]: So I probably start by pointing to and this is really sad but the deaths of children. Um so when you look at an individual level individual cases normally when a child dies from the use of a particular toy or product that's normally enough to take a product off the shelf. Um, we've got a number of brewery families talking about the relationship between their child's death and their use of social media. And I think that's the that's where we should start here.
4:29: Um, but when you're moving to a population level, so away from those individual stories and case studies, the fact that we have 46% of children, 9 to 16 year olds, saying that they continue scrolling gaming even when they're not enjoying it. um that you have 40% of children turning down real world social opportunities in order to stay on social media. Displacing activity despite the fact that they're not enjoying what they're doing to me suggests that this isn't something that children are always choosing to do even when they don't want to.
5:02 [Tony Curzon Price]: Tony, can I can I just I I just wanted to jump in on this point about causality because I it is at least in the kind of economics and technical literature on this one of the big things which is show me causality now and and people like Jonathan hate have obviously done this very big piece of work very uh uh uh the uh on social social media in which they have a lot of correlation.
5:23: So they have this correlation add lots and lots of correlations. So for example uh post 2012 dramatic increase in um uh teenage girl mental health issues. And the hat's argument is essentially of the form, look, I'm not showing you causation. But what else happened apart from the introduction of the front-facing phone, the takeoff of Instagram and the self-image issues, right? So, so, so, and and of course, um, the social media companies jump on this and say, where's the cause? These are not causal studies.
6:06: So I just wanted to say to to my mind there are two really nice studies um which start to point towards causality and and so the first one is this it's not for teenagers it's for people just going to university but hold that it does give us really nice causality which was that Facebook rolled out uh in 2004 5 6 7 8 and it rolled out campus by campus in the US it part of the marketing strategy.
6:40 [Tony Curzon Price]: You had to have a .edu domain to get an account and it started at Harvard and it had the most you know it was part of the genius of it was it became status thing to have an account. So what someone did was to look at uh mental health referrals pre and post Facebook roll out as a natural experiment for saying okay well if it changes mental health then what did it do as you rolled out and indeed what you find is that there's a dramatic increase in mental health referrals for these 18 19 year olds as Facebook rolls out so so that's the first one which starts to feel like a causal study.
7:22 [Tony Curzon Price]: And then the second one is not a causal study. It's a it's a it's a reported uh valuation study, but it also gives starts to give us a sense that there truly is a problem. And this was a willingness to pay study again done in the US again done with university students in which they were asked uh a how much they would need to be paid to come off social media and the average came out you know I will come off social media but you'll have to pay me a lot I can't remember the exact number like $200 a month or something.
8:00: And then they were also asked how much would you need to be paid if everyone else comes off social media and there remarkably they said no no no we would pay for that outcome right so there was absolutely dramat so so what that started to show is that the people experiencing it themselves have this perception that a they're stuck in this system and b that they'd like to get out of it yeah they need help.
8:28 [Joe Owen]: So how did we get here Tony how how is there anything different in the way in which social media has evolved in comparison to other forms of media.
8:36 [Tony Curzon Price]: So I So how did we get here? I think that I think the number one thing uh is the attention harvesting business model, right? And the attention harvesting business model plus the logic the wonderful uh Corey Doctoro uh word the logic of inertification of platforms.
9:00: So the the story essentially is this it's now very familiar you provide a product which is very attractive and has many good things and certainly you know in uh for me uh in the you know late 2000s uh Facebook was that very very attractive thing. um you then gradually make it less and less more so so you do that you don't have a business model um your investors are behind you the next thing that you do is you say okay it's time to make a little bit of money how are we going to do that so you start uh you start pumping out uh uh advertisements fine most people think okay fine bit of ads for this stuff just fine.
9:49: And then of course as a business you have fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders who are saying, "Okay, you've got all this, you've got all that, you've captured all this attention. People are spending a lot of time here. You know who all their friends are. Fine, you're pumping out ads, but can't you do more?" You start thinking, "Okay, well, yes, I could do more. I can tweak the algorithm to make sure that uh they want to come back."
10:13 [Tony Curzon Price]: And this is where you start getting these remarkable stories. Um, for example, the the wonderful whistleblowing uh uh whistleblowing book from inside Facebook by Sarah Win Williams in which she describes some of you will remember sort of in the 2010 scandal in Australia where there's a leaked powerpoint deck where uh Facebook ad salespeople are saying, "Hey, we can tell you when a young woman deletes a selfie profile picture on Instagram. This is the moment to hit her with some beauty product ads, right?"
10:57: And uh Win Williams has this remarkable few pages in which she says she's in charge of uh international government relations at the time at Facebook and she says, "God, you know, we've got to deny this. We've got to do something. This is really bad." And what comes back from the team is, "Well, the trouble is it's true." Yeah.
11:15: So, so, so anyway, attention harvesting plus inification plus fiduciary duty to shareholders gets you to where we are. You know, the the big difference between um what we've done in the past with media in this country and what we did with cyerspace is deciding to grab it and to do something positive with it rather than letting it go.
11:41 [Joe Owen]: So we'll come back to the what could grabbing it and doing something positive with it look like. Before we start to talk through some of the sort of solutions and the options available, I just want to understand why the kind of current set of measures that we've got and the current safeguards that are in place feel so insufficient particularly for kids. Hannah.
12:03 [Hannah Perry]: So, I think to understand this, it's it's useful to think about a few different things that parents and and we as like humans need to like be really gripping and um being able to navigate this this digital environment. So, at the moment, the challenge for parents is a combination of variable levels of awareness of what's available. So what these tools are, the ability to use them, the confidence to use them, and then when you offset all of those different variables against the fact that um technology is constantly changing, so these features and controls are changing across all of these different devices and apps.
12:40: And then combine that with the fact that your child's behavior across however many children you have will also be constantly changing with every trend, with every, oh, you know, my mates have just downloaded this. like that is a full-time job for a parent to stay on top of all of those different um variables that are needed. And when you combine that with the fact that um digital media literacy is something that we've been very slow to invest in in this country, it it plays out is to just very variable levels and and and essentially parents just finding it really hard.
13:06: Um so and that's something that we've we've also noticed has an impact. If you look at a study that's been published earlier this year by DEIT on parents digital media literacy, you also see these differences in social digital inequalities. So parents that have their own kind of low device usage um where they lack confidence in in the digital world, they have a knock-on real difficulty in in navigating these different controls which obviously then has a knock-on impact on their kids. So it's something we need to take very seriously.
13:34 [Joe Owen]: the the changing environment point's really interesting and if you think about it from the government intervention perspective I mean the the online safety act is barely three years old which was supposed to be the big intervention and it's interesting that we're having this conversation now which feels so urgent and feel like it's been so untouched by government intervention but as I say this flagship bill came in 3 years ago and barely seems to have touched the sides on this issue um Hannah why has this bubbled back up the agenda And now then why having felt like we had legislated 3 years ago to solve the issue are we back feeling like it is so urgent and and something needs to happen right now.
14:14 [Hannah Perry]: I think I think it's bubbled up to the agenda now because of a confluence of different things that have happened. So firstly I think there was an incorrect assumption that the online safety act would be a silver bullet. I think when it was introduced there was a knowledge and understanding that it would need to be introduced in a phased way but also an expectation that that implementation there would be ways of strengthening aspects of it as it was introduced. Um, I'll come back to the weaknesses, but if you combine that phased approach, that slow implementation with the fact that there have been a number of parents, I've already pointed to just the really tragic instances that have occurred who have been coming together and campaigning and highlighting these issues together with other adults that are working with children um who are experiencing a a digital world that has got worse.
15:00: So the fact that there was so much in the online safety act that was predicated on an understanding that the terms of service that um tech companies would be using would be the minimum standard and that if anything they would get stronger and actually what's been happening is those terms of service have been weakened over time but also there are new technologies that are now being introduced um that have much lower standards and we haven't even started talking about AI chatbots yet.
15:28: I think if you combine that together with cultural influences, so we've had shows like Adolescence and more recently Molly Against the Machine, um combined with the fact that Australia has now gone for this ban, you've got all of this energy and effort and disappointment over the lack of impact of the online safety act.
15:43 [Hannah Perry]: Um combined with now what can feel like a really easy solution to just slamming the hammer and solving it all. So I think it's the coalescence of those different things which mean why it feels so precient in this moment.
15:57 [Joe Owen]: And the government has recently launched its consultation. The sort of eye-catching thing, as you say, in that was setting a minimum age, essentially banning social media for kids. That's what the Australian government has done. Tony, do you think we should just ban it?
16:09 [Tony Curzon Price]: Um, it I I can see the temptation and I can see that it's um it it you know, we've got a real problem for all the reasons that that that Hannah Hannah described. Uh but I think that we shouldn't do a blanket ban. Not saying that we shouldn't necessarily ban particular products and particular social media uh uh social media outlets. I I think that um we should think of it in a product regulation mindset.
16:41: Right? So uh cars are extraordinarily dangerous things. you're you're you know drive you have a projectile two-tonon projectile that can go to 100 miles an hour. They're extraordinarily dangerous. We have a lot of product regulation around them. We don't go around talking about banning banning cars. We go around talking about making them safe.
17:05 [Tony Curzon Price]: And I think that the so so the the downsides what are the downsides with the Australia solution? It seems to me that there are a number of unintended consequences. The the first I think one needs to I I really believe this is is that there's something potentially humanity enhancing in social media. Social media is about human connection. Human connections in general extraordinarily valuable.
17:34: It's also uh valuable often to the most to the to the to to very vulnerable groups and vulnerable children. And you know the typical example that you might think of is uh a a let let's think of the the gay child in a uh very uh uh conservative socially conservative environment. Finds it difficult to find their place. Terribly unhappy. finds a community online that that's lifeenhancing. It's something that it's liberating. It's about self-realization. It's all the rest. It doesn't need to be as dramatic as that. It could be someone with a talent for talent for art who finds that they can share this and get some feedback and all the rest of it.
18:25: I mean, you know, we wouldn't want to ban friendship, right? So we certainly don't we we want that there are there are enormously positive things.
18:35 [Tony Curzon Price]: I think the other the second so which would be a pity to be pity to to uh not be able to do good social media. The second thing I think is there's there's a real cut off problem which is okay you ban it. Um, and that means that at least those who haven't worked around it by getting VPNs and going to totally unregulated spaces, uh, those people, those children, they come to the age of 16, they're then launched into an adult world of social media and without having had social a training into this world. So that cut off problem is a real problem.
19:14: So I think that instead of saying let's just stop it, we should think about how do we make it good.
19:21 [Joe Owen]: I your point on cars is really interesting because like no government has a sort of zero harm approach to anything right because if you did there'd be all sorts of things that were banned um and it's sort of how do you get that balance right? Um Hannah, what do what do you think about a ban?
19:39 [Hannah Perry]: Uh I don't think we should ban social media. Um, I think there are other better solutions that have actually been long on the table um and available, but there just hasn't been the political will to implement them um to strengthen the online safety act or the uh the pace at Ofcom to um or the appetite to go further. Um so I think there are better solutions on the table. I also think there are new solutions that we could be finding and I think it's possible through the design of this consultation I think for us to be finding new solutions that could actually be based on the insights and experiences of of children and the needs that are highlighted through parents.
20:19: Um, I think just going back to why not a ban, there's a there's a some lessons that are already coming out of Australia, but also some polling that's been done in the UK that recognizes that even with a ban, I think there's a stat from Public First that suggests that 50% of parents would still evade a ban even if it was to come in, we know that children are likely to evade it, find ways of of evading it, or they get pushed onto more risky platforms.
20:41 [Hannah Perry]: And I think when I when you take a big zoom back and you think about the experiences that this generation of children have already had um I was a teacher during lockdown um and saw the impact of spaces being suddenly taken away from children in a way that didn't reflect their voices, didn't reflect their needs um and in a way that they didn't understand. And I think when you when you experiment in that way with children's day-to-day lives and the things that they really depend on, it really breaks trust. It really breaks relationships in a way that I think is far more negative and corrosive than um sadly like the existing social media environment would be which I think we can improve.
21:18 [Joe Owen]: The the argument against Bannon the kind of idea that um what you would do is end up pushing people into less regulated spaces or pushing kids into less regulated spaces that they might feel less willing to talk about what is happening on them because they know they're doing something that they shouldn't be seems quite compelling. But then you you sort of worry that any of the kind of quote unquote cuter solutions are also just for the birds. If what we're saying is even with a hard ban, it won't have the desired effect. Isn't that also a risk with any of the other sort of regulatory tweaks in the product regulation approach that you talked about, Tony?
21:58 [Tony Curzon Price]: Well, look, I I I think there are real limitations to product regulation uh and that approach for for for for some of the reasons that you describe. So, actually my the the thing that I'd really like to see is a public service uh a public service construction of a good alternative.
22:20 [Tony Curzon Price]: Now, the the why is that different from product regulation? So the style of regulation and the style of regulation which unfortunately was at its uh the height of its popularity when things like the online safety act or the digital markets unit were set up. The the the the style of regulation was one where you say okay the market has these problems but we're going to we're going to have particular rules. We're going to change incentives. We're going to sometimes things will be banned. We're going to make sure that we have paths to get information, but we're going to the our starting point is going to be what these shareholder uh uh fiduciary obligation companies do and then we're going to try and shape that.
23:08: So that because of the complexity, the sheer complexity of creating products is a really tough ask. There are so many ways in which you can continue to initify. So the the a better solution, it seems to me, is one in which a a a an organization with a clear purpose where that purpose might, for example, be educate, inform, entertain, um takes the problem of 7 to 12 year olds, 12 to 16 year olds, etc., etc., and says what is a product that is actually good?
23:51 [Tony Curzon Price]: And obviously making the product actually good has to navigate the problem that you highlight there which is it has to be edgy enough so that the children go don't go off uh vPNing into some nasty space but and and and it's very interesting talking to people who've tried doing this then and and who work a lot with children and children online. They say look pushing boundaries is what childhood is about. It's what it's what growing up is about. But the point is to create a space in which pushing those boundaries doesn't lead you immediately into the worst possible spaces uh that that that that that are out there.
24:32: And it's it so it's a it's a subtle job. It's a it's a it's a creative job, but it's one I'm very interested, Howard, here that you've been a teacher because it seems to me that it's one that teachers know very well that that uh you are there to teach children how to push boundaries and how to push them well.
24:52 [Joe Owen]: So, I want to um I want to stay with this theme of like what could a good radical alternative look like? Where we've got to I think is harm. Yes, ban doesn't feel like the right solution, but both of you seem optimistic that there are better alternatives. Hannah, what do you make of this proposal then for a sort of public service social media?
25:14 [Hannah Perry]: Um, I think it is very timely. Um, I think it reflects a lot of the ideas actually that Demos also put into the um BBC Charter renewal consultation submission and I know that others like the British Broadcasting Challenge have echoed similar. But we recommended that um the BBC reintroduced the purpose um that they had and was removed in 2016 around um delivering to the public the benefit of emerging comm's technologies but also infrastructure to enhance the quality and sovereignty of our democracy.
25:40: And that was a with a real recognition of the role of the BBC as a catalyst for the public service media ecosystem but also its history and heritage and investing in the the infrastructure that's needed to facilitate that ecosystem. Um the principles of the BBC that come back to universal access, I think also really push us to be thinking about what new ways um the BBC is a as a real kind of unique source of trustworthy information to so many people across the political divide.
26:06: We need to be thinking about where else the BBC needs to be. Um, and so I think also they also need to be thinking about AI um, and investing in new kinds of like open-source um, AI tools that could be um, available and experimented with not just by technologists at the BBC but also others who are working across public service media ecosystem. I think that's so important not not just for the digital sovereignty to use another like buzzword phrase of the year um, for the UK but also a phrase that we're using at Demos epistemic sovereignty. So our knowledge, our information um having greater independence from um the information environments that we've been so dependent on or um increasingly the the US social media spaces.
26:54: So I think that's really important. But the innovations that I'm also really excited about um are ones that aren't just thinking about national level social networks, public interest networks, but those that can be built in our local communities um that can be available to children um but also are associated with uh local news outlets.
27:10: So I've been really excited about the work that Bristol Cable is doing um with Newsm Foundation. So thinking about ways of building community around those sorts of new sources. Um I think the work that New Public is doing in the States where they're developing apps like Roundabout um thinking about new online digital spaces that are built in our locality and building those connections back um I think I think are really positive. Just moving back to the opportunities for the BBC, I think we also need to be thinking about what infrastructure um and the kinds of funding and support they would also need. Um they have to have adequate funding to be able to do that well. Um and they also need compute capacity and I think the government thinking about how they can enable that uh for the BBC as a catalyst. I think I hope to see in the white paper.
27:54 [Joe Owen]: Yeah. I just Tony I want to come back to you just briefly on this which is if if the BBC and the government said we're up for it, we're up for the challenge. We want to see if we can build something better with a public sort of service ethos at its heart. What do you think practically they should do in the upcoming charter renewal? What are you looking for? What would be success for you to show that they're taking this seriously?
28:18 [Tony Curzon Price]: I I mean I think that something I think that they should, you know, I think that our goal should be a 2028 launch of a BBC club kids social network. And I think it should be a national launch. I think it's feasible by 2028. I think one of the reasons for that is obviously uh children's online safety. I I'm very very sympathetic with everything Hannah says about the wider problem of epistemic security.
28:47: I think that children's online safety has, you know, is a is is is a pressing issue. it's urgent and everyone recognize it as recognizes it as being urgent and therefore is the thing that should be addressed fastest and first. I also think by the way that there's something very important about creating about the sorts of tastes that you develop for these things early on. I mean I think that it's you know you you it's it's like childhood food. It's like childhood TV programs.
29:18: I know, you know, I I grew up I grew up outside the UK. I I I grew up in France. I arrived in the UK as a uh as as a 10-year-old and the people around me would talk about Doctor Who. And I remember looking at Doctor Who and thinking, "This is utterly weird. I just don't understand why all of these people around me, all all of my all of my friends are so enthusiastic about it." Right?
29:50: had been fed on French television with its kind of uh uh uh uh you know cheap American series and etc etc. There's something there's something really fundamental about how um uh styles of communication, styles of um uh sensitivity are shaped in the early years of people's people's lives. And we have this enormous problem with uh digital literacy with epistemic security etc etc.
30:20: The long-term solution to that goes through mainstreaming the way in which education and taste formation in terms of um the the style the style that we like like the food that we uh that that we eat. Marmike by the way was exactly the same as Doctor Who from my point of view as a 10-year-old arriving. How could people want this stuff?
30:40 [Joe Owen]: I grew up in the UK and I never really understood Doctor Who either. Maybe I shouldn't. Uh, go ahead, Tate. Um, Hannah, what are the wider set of measures? We've talked about a sort of big play here from the BBC and government, but there's a whole host of other things that the government should be considering. What are they, do you think?
31:00 [Hannah Perry]: Um, so I I think it's right that we should be thinking about an array of solutions. Like there's there's not going to be one silver bullet here. And I think just the recognition that this is a complex problem that requires um solutions for a variety of needs I think should has to be the starting point. Um I think first I' I'd also just love to pause about the importance of this consultation because I think some people like which I fully understand have been quite frustrated by the creation of a consultation because there's a feeling that it delays things which are blindingly obvious that could have been done a year or two ago. um which I really do sympathize with because there are good solutions on the table already.
31:39: However, I think the fact that we're having this consultation now creates a space um firstly for for children to be a part of this conversation to be highlighting what are the benefits of social media that need to be protected and enhanced especially that could be carried over into new digital public spaces. Um but also that parents are having conversations with one another. And I think there's been a need for parents particularly in local areas to be able to come together to facilitate facilitate conversations about how they can shift the social norms in their environments in their relationships.
32:11: And I've I've been hearing incredible stories from MPs who are facilitating these conversations in the local communities where parents are suddenly coming together and realizing that actually if they strengthen their own relationships with one another, they could be creating safer offline spaces that they'd be more comfortable to be putting their their children through.
32:27: So just that was just my pause to say I think there's there's been a real benefit and I think we'll see other upsides from this consultation phase but other things that could be done um the online safety act network has put together a 10-point plan for things that could be improved with the existing online safety act which yes it has its weaknesses um but the things that they could be thinking about whether that's um really expanding and being very clear what is meant by safety by design.
32:56: there's an opportunity to um be amending the act to being very clear what is meant by safety by design and that's when you come back to these product design principles of of of what do we mean by safety and that then prevents these sorts of dangerous features being released onto the market.
33:13 [Tony Curzon Price]: Tony you I I mean I'm really no I I just totally agree with this point about the importance of conversations around this and I think that it's not only conversations between parents but it's conversations within families 100% and and I think that one of the things which um in a in a sense has happened is that um we've let the phones into the home and the phones have created a portal to a private to to a space which isn't which isn't discussed.
33:40: So whereas the television or the radio was very often something that was uh uh which the whole family uh uh uh uh had access to at the same time and therefore led to conversations and therefore of course back to this point about the importance in childhood of pushing boundaries.
34:00: What you had was a uh a a a situation in which, you know, a film which had some sex in it or some violence in it could lead to a conversation about what was going on or even to an explicit no, you can't watch this, get out just in order to make sure that these things are talked about that somehow or other a you know uh uh uh norms and ways of behavior around stuff which is difficult, which is on boundaries. All of that happened because of the technology and the nature of the technology here meant that it was taken away.
34:38 [Tony Curzon Price]: And one of the things I'm very keen on is um a notion that is part of the overall solution to how we create a more civilized cyber space is that actually um families ought to ought to have available to them a a a civil society layer which says actually all of your network traffic, all of the stuff that's coming in and going out is actually being uh it's being not surveiled but the nature of it, the nature of the sites etc. who is looking at what you're getting some degree of information back.
35:21: Now, there's a very tight line here between children feeling that this is an oppressive space and they have to find ways around it versus families being able to say, "Well, look, the negotiation with the teenager or the seven-year-old is, yes, you have a tablet. Yes, you have access to the Wi-Fi, but by the way, no one is going to actually snoop and look at what you're doing, but we are going to get automated reports back that say, "Wait, actually, perhaps you should have a uh a conversation about this is time to have a conversation about body, self-image, about things like this."
36:00: There are these are the sorts of uh uh uh non topdown solutions which we've got to put in place as infrastructure in order to create the space and the opportunity for conversations for mechanisms for transmission of norms and culture which the technology has displaced.
36:16 [Hannah Perry]: M kind of and I think it's really interesting that in Australia one of the evaluation indicators that um they're using at Stanford is this um criteria to to what extent the ban has resolved family conflict because as a recognition of of what as you say Tony that what social media has displaced and if um there are greater conversations um within families they're seeing that as a sign that this ban has been successful which I think really points to yeah some of the some of the challenges that we're trying to create.
36:46 [Hannah Perry]: Just one other thing that I think is just to add another bit of positivity in here is um the recommendations around the BBC taking on a stronger role on media literacy. That being something that is being proposed as a new purpose for the BBC, I think is also really exciting because I think what we need for not just legislation because I think strengthen legislation has to be a key part of this as well as investing in new digital spaces, but we need a social cultural norm shift.
37:12: And to facilitate that, we all need to be having media cultural stimulus that tells us stories that role models different ways in which we can have these sorts of conversations. And I think having other kinds of formats that can trigger those sorts of conversations throughout our media, throughout our BBC, I think is another really promising um feature that I hope I hope we're coming through.
37:29 [Joe Owen]: If if people listening to this were thinking these all sound like great ideas, what's the thing that I should be looking out for after the government consultation closes? Like what's the one or two concrete policies or decisions that you would hope the government would take? Can I sort of push you on what you think those specific things would be? Um Hannah, you first and then Tony.
37:51 [Hannah Perry]: So I think there's a difference between what I think it's likely to be versus what I hope to see. Um what I hope to see is the inclusion of AI chat bots um into the scope of the online safety act. I think I'm really pleased to see that AI chatbots have been included in the scope of the consultation. I think that's a really positive step. They're not included in in the scope with the Australia social media ban. And I think that is crucial because I think if we're thinking about taking away people's real life friends in digital spaces, we need to be thinking about the kind of sickopantic robot chat bots that people that children are making friends with in our current environment.
38:22 [Hannah Perry]: So looking to the next problem and be legislating around AI, I think is the thing that I really hope we see as a result of this consultation.
38:32 [Tony Curzon Price]: My my version is that I think what what I'd really like to see is a strong statement by the government to say the BBC needs to become the platform, not feed the platform. that it needs to hold the um hold the the the the the national conversation, not feed that conversation in into algorithms and into spaces that are controlled in a very different way.
39:04 [Tony Curzon Price]: And um I think a very important part of that very specifically is that throughout the 2010s BBC has been hampered by being told that it must not crowd out what the market can provide. I think what we've discovered in the 2010s is that what the market does provide online is toxic and that actually the last rule we want is one which says, "Oh no, BBC, don't go there. You're going to, you know, the the the the channel owners, the media owners, the platform owners are going to complain and say, "You're taking attention away from us. This could be provided by the market."
39:48: The fact is the market is not providing what we want. And I do hope that the new director general of the BBC as an ex Google uh employee understands this and knows that the role he's stepping into. It's a very different kind of role.
40:05 [Tony Curzon Price]: Clear sign from the government that we've changed our attitude towards what regulation in this space means.
40:15 [Joe Owen]: I'm going to close us out now and sort of zoom out slightly. We've been talking predominantly around kids, although notwithstanding some of the points are broader. But if I gave you cart blanch to say you can go in and tell Kier Starmer to do one thing to improve our increasingly broken information environment. What would your one thing for Kier Starma be? I picked on you first last time, Hannah, so I'm gonna pick on you first this time, Tony.
40:43 [Tony Curzon Price]: I would say launch a widespread program of experimentation of intervention in cyerspace with purpose and the purpose very clearly being educate, inform, entertain. do that in such so so that so that we have a counterweight to the profit purpose which is shaping our epistemic environment.
41:14 [Hannah Perry]: Hannah, I'm so pleased that you said that cuz now I can say something else but yes and um strengthen the online safety act so that our existing digital spaces um are designed for safety. So safety by design but also minimum standards for terms of service uh for social media so that we have a strong baseline that we are building up from and that it includes duties for AI chatbots.
41:37 [Tony Curzon Price / Hannah Perry]: Tony Hannah thank you so much. Thank you.
41:40 [Joe Owen]: If you enjoyed this episode please do like and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Nester is a research and innovation foundation. We are a charity and we are politically impartial and we design, test and scale solutions to society's biggest problems. If you'd like to find out more information, go to www.nesa.org.uk.
How to make social media safer for children
Hannah Perry, director (digital policy), Demos
Hannah is the interim director of Demos Digital, leading the specialist digital policy hub with a focus on strengthening resilient information ecosystems and trustworthy technology. During her time at Demos, she led the launch of the Epistemic Security Network in 2025, a policy platform and home for collective efforts to protect democracy by fortifying our information supply chains, Waves, Demos’ digital democracy experiment, and studies including into the efficacy of Community Notes during the riots, how we strengthen local information ecosystems and advance digital rights.
Hannah is a former research & innovation director, bringing over a decade of experience from the worlds of research, social behaviour change communications and education with a focus on tackling harmful attitudes and behaviours online and offline, both in the UK, East Africa and Asia Pacific. She is a qualified secondary school English teacher (PGCE), has a SOAS MA in Migration & Diaspora Studies and an MSc on the Social Science of the Internet from the Oxford Internet Institute.
Tony Curzon Price, policy advisor, Nesta
Tony is a policy adviser at Nesta. He is an economist. In the public sector, he has worked in the No10 Policy Unit, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the CMA and the Competition Commission. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of OpenDemocracy, and he founded and led a venture-backed California-based silicon design business. He is a non-executive director of the UK's energy regulator, OFGEM.
We extend our impact through two specialised units that help people and organisations to solve complex problems and achieve their goals.
BIT helps clients from government, nonprofits and the private sector to improve people’s lives through our empirical problem solving and deep understanding of human behaviour.
Challenge Works designs and runs challenge prizes to spark innovation in science, technology and society.
Join our mailing list to receive the Nesta Edit, our regular newsletter showcasing how we design, test and scale solutions to some of society's biggest challenges, with updates from Nesta, BIT, Challenge Works and the wider innovation sector.
* denotes a required field
You can unsubscribe by clicking the link in our emails where indicated, or emailing [email protected]. Or you can update your contact preferences. We promise to keep your details safe and secure. We won't share your details outside of Nesta without your permission. Find out more about how we use personal information in our Privacy Policy.
