The government’s online safety consultations consider age thresholds and throttling addictive features, while critics caution that emotional reactions may outpace evidence-based policy.

As discussions continue, the push is to strengthen regulations that shape how children engage with technology and social media in the future.

There is a framing of online safety as a crisis requiring urgent, data-informed regulatory changes to prevent harm to children, while balancing underlying harms and data practices.

Debates hinge on whether to pursue age limits or bans versus addressing root harms, data practices, and timely investigations in child safety online.

Critics argue the government’s consultations must translate into practical measures, such as a minimum age for social media and limiting addictive features, but warn outrage could outpace solid policy.

Politicians and stakeholders voice mixed views: some seek immediate action or bans, while others advocate a measured, consultative approach balancing safety with internet access.

Public outrage over child safety online is driving calls for stronger regulations, with discussions in the House of Lords helping shape future policy.

Policy decisions must balance empirical evidence, political feasibility, and the need to protect children without limiting internet access, clarifying roles for platforms, investigators, and families.

Officials warn that finding the right balance is complex and that action will follow where evidence shows the need for further steps to protect children.

Baroness Kidron argues that outrage—not thoughtful argument—drives rapid changes in social media law and calls for more comprehensive measures beyond bans to address root harms.

Ellen Roome, who lost her son to an online challenge, says progress is welcome yet too slow, as vital digital evidence can be lost in the early aftermath, hampering investigations and accountability for platforms.

Across parties and stakeholders, there is growing momentum for stronger online safety rules as the crisis drives urgency in policy discussions.