Left-wing social media site Bluesky could be made exempt from Sir Keir Starmer’s mass internet clampdown.The Prime Minister is expected to announce an “Australia-style” social media ban for more than 12 million under-16s today – which he says will “protect children”.Under the plans – far tougher than previously reported – Britons will have their internet access limited by the Government on a hand-picked series of websites.These are expected to include TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat and Reddit.But Bluesky, the left-leaning rival to X, looks set to escape a ban.Last year, the platform partnered with the Internet Watch Foundation after it experienced a “predictable uptick” in child sexual abuse material when its membership numbers grew.Discord, a gaming-oriented messaging platform, has also not been included in the preliminary list.An NBC News probe had previously identified hundreds of active Discord servers promoting child exploitation, revelations which its CEO described as “horrifying”.Sources have told The Guardian that the Government may face the threat of judicial review if it bans some platforms and not others.The Prime Minister is expected to announce an ‘Australia-style’ social media ban for more than 12 million under-16s today | GETTYThe Sunday Times reported the ban covers the same 10 platforms barred for under-16s in Australia: TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, X, Threads, Facebook and Kick.Ministers will rule on which specific platforms face an under-16 ban at a later date.But critics have raised fears of censorship, authoritarianism and a “two-tier” social media ecosystem.Reem Ibrahim, of the Reason Foundation think tank, warned: “The UK is banning under-16s from social media, under the guise of ‘protecting kids’, but it will not include Bluesky. Is this simply overt political censorship?”While one MP told The Guardian: “Are we giving votes to 16-year-olds but banning them from watching the election results on YouTube?”
SOCIAL MEDIA BAN – READ MORE:
The ban is said to cover the same 10 platforms barred for under-16s in Australia under Anthony Albanese | GETTYThere will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 which prevent “scrolling” late at night.A public consultation on the clampdown received about 116,000 responses, making it the second-largest in history.Some 91 per cent of parents backed a minimum age of 16 before platforms can offer their services to children.However, parents were asked at what age a social media ban should be lifted, not whether one should exist.They overwhelmingly chose 16, from a possible list of options that were 13, 16, 18, and “I don’t know”.Tory Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott said it was ‘shameful’ that it had taken Labour so long to ban social media | GETTYAhead of his Downing Street press conference today, Sir Keir said: “How we keep kids safe online is one of the biggest debates of our time. As a dad, I know every parent wants their child to grow up safe and happy.”This is a choice about whose side we’re on: families across the country, or a status quo that isn’t working. People rightly expect action, and this Government will always stand up for parents and put children first.”That’s why we will call time on a system that’s failing our kids and take bold action to give every child the best possible start in life.”Calls for a ban are almost overwhelming, with even the Conservatives falling into line on demands for more restrictions.Tory Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott said it was “shameful” that it had taken Labour so long to ban social media.She bristled: “Three times Labour voted against a ban, failing to stand up to Big Tech and protect children from the extreme content they are exposed to every day.”Sir Keir’s would-be replacement in No10, Wes Streeting, has said a ban must be the “start, not the end”, adding that social media should be “treated like tobacco”.Mr Streeting’s intervention came alongside a report from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges which also compared social media to smoking.That report said there was “overwhelming conensus” among its members that there was a link between using devices and health harms.The same report acknowledged the evidence for this was, in fact, minimal.Christopher Snowdon, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, has long warned that “trying to ban social media for under-16s leads to a minority of kids not using social media, thereby becoming even less popular and more ostracised, while the majority use VPNs and unregulated apps”.He added: “Politicians want to ban social media because people are rude to them on it. The old media want to ban it because it’s competition. They will not stop with the under-16s. Resist it while you can.”