Wes Streeting's recent intervention regarding social media regulation for under-16s throws a harsh light on the Labour government's sluggish response to the documented harms inflicted upon young people by tech giants. As the government's consultation on potential regulations draws to a close, Streeting's assertion that Keir Starmer is “behind the curve” underscores a disturbing pattern of prioritizing corporate interests over the wellbeing of vulnerable children.

The comparison between social media companies and the tobacco industry, repeatedly invoked by Streeting, is particularly apt. Just as tobacco companies deliberately concealed the health risks associated with their products, Big Tech firms have been accused of suppressing evidence regarding the addictive nature and psychological damage caused by their platforms. This includes studies linking excessive social media use to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and body image issues among adolescents.

Streeting rightly points out that the business model of these platforms is inherently exploitative, designed to addict young users and maximize their engagement at the expense of their mental and physical health. This echoes concerns raised by child advocacy groups and mental health professionals, who have long warned about the dangers of exposing children to algorithmically driven content and constant social comparison.

The government's apparent reluctance to implement a comprehensive ban on social media for under-16s raises serious questions about its commitment to child protection. While Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall's rapid consultation is a welcome step, it is insufficient to address the systemic issues at play. A robust regulatory framework is needed, one that prioritizes the rights and wellbeing of children over the profits of tech corporations.

Critics argue that a ban could infringe on freedom of expression, but this argument ignores the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between tech companies and young users. Children lack the cognitive maturity to fully understand the risks associated with social media, making them particularly vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

The potential for increased surveillance is a valid concern, but this can be mitigated through careful implementation of the ban and robust data protection measures. The alternative – allowing tech companies to continue profiting from the exploitation of children – is simply unacceptable.