Social Media Companies - Profits Before User Safety

Two days ago I posted something about the 6 month impact of Australian social media ban for under-16s. Coincidently, Keir Starmer also announced that the government is looking to implement a similar social media ban, alongside possible legislation to force companies such as Google and Apple to block children being able to take, share or view nude images. Some big changes then that the UK government are proposing.

So, it was of no surprise to read today, that the White House is telling the UK not to bring in the ban (lbc.co.uk/article/white…). Yes, one country telling another country what they should not be doing. What is the betting that we'll soon start to see the threat of tariffs being imposed on the UK by the senile, orange one too? If you had read my post, I make the point, that in my opinion, the ban itself can only be part of a solution. If what you really want to achieve is improving young people's mental health and well-being which is caused through the designed, addictive features within their products, something else has to be done other than just trying to stop under-16s gaining access.

We know from evidence coming out of Australia that the ban is possibly not achieving what the government would want, with the majority of under-16s saying that either the ban hasn't really affected them or that they can fairly easily circumvent any restriction through using a VPN.

Some believe that the social media companies are not taking the 'reasonable steps' to remove and block under-16 accounts. In reality, why would they, when they know that losing potentially many millions of users, especially if the ban would spread to many other countries, would hurt them financially? Unless fines are enormous, many companies see fines as 'the cost of doing business' in countries. But, what would hurt these companies considerably, and hence the intervention by the White House, would be governments asking them to redesign their products to make them safe for users, forcing them to remove those addictive features, for instance. If they refuse to make the changes, then hit them with huge fines. The UK has the ability to fine tech companies up to 10% of their global turnover, which has yet to be used, but is there as a serious threat. I think this at the bottom of why social media companies ran off crying to the White House to complain that what UK and other countries are doing is unfair.

Is it too much to ask that a company makes a product that is safe for all its users?? We have toy, food and car safety standards, for example, to protect consumers, why don't we have it for digital platforms? By complaining, both big tech companies and the US government are really showing their true colours. It's clear that they believe in profits before safety and well-being of all users $$$$$