“A lot of this is about signals and changing social norms around what’s healthy and not healthy,” she says.
“It lets parents know that kids shouldn’t be on these things overnight, and as we know a lot of kids want to spend less time on their phones as well.
“But of course they can switch it off, and any kids with problematic smartphone use, which is one in four, external, will do that straight away.”
While welcoming the recent moves by the government, Greenwell says the root of the problem needs to be addressed.
“Engagement being the core driver of the way these businesses are run is not healthy for children or adults, so the ultimate end goal would be to get that fixed too.
“But let’s start with getting this social media ban in place and working.”
However, Dr Sarah Turner, a researcher based at UCL’s Knowledge Lab who investigates how young people interact with emerging technologies, believes the measures are a step too far.
Speaking at Latitude Festival, where she was doing a talk on the social media ban, she said platforms like YouTube could be a lifeline to some teenagers.
“If you don’t have parents who take you to places or a community where there is a space to hang out, then you will be disproportionately affected by this.
“There is undoubtedly harm online, but there needs to be more research. We’ve told teenagers to use these systems, they have socialised themselves into it, and now we’re saying they can’t use them.
“They use messaging within these platforms to connect with each other and it’s the way they access news. They use these platforms in a different way, to the way people behind the policies do.
“Social media is not all bad. Parents need to have better discussions with their children.”
Lorna Woods, professor of internet law at the University of Essex, similarly believes the curfew is an attempt to appease parents and campaign groups.
She welcomes the move in general, but hopes apps can be made safer while they are being designed in the future.
“The focus on features and functionalities rather than content is a positive step, albeit limited in scope,” she says.
“A more coherent and arguably more future-proofed approach would be to require services to be safe by design – essentially product safety for digital products.”
NSPCC chief executive Chris Sherwood says the proposals are a good first step but not enough on their own, without restrictions on gaming, AI and messaging services.
“Unless they’re followed up with further, stronger measures they will be a sticking plaster that fails to address the addictive design features which are driving high screen time and undermining children’s wellbeing,” he says.
“We need to see action to address harm caused by AI chatbots, which are amplifying damaging content and trapping children and young people in echo chambers. Their safety must be an urgent priority for the new prime minister and his government.”
Do you have a story suggestion for Suffolk? Contact us below.
