There are moments in history where a nation must stand up, put on its armour and say: “No thank you, we’d rather not auction off our children’s wellbeing in exchange for a few chlorinated chickens and an iPhone discount.”
Now feels like one of those moments because rumours are swirling, and they’ve got the unmistakable scent of truth, that the UK government may once again consider lowering its regulatory standards to stay in the good graces of the USA. But this time, the golden goose isn’t chicken, it’s data: particular those reaped from your kids/nephews/nieces, all for the financial benefits of the digital wild west we politely call “Big Tech”.
Listening to Sarah Wynn Williams giving testimony to a sub-committee last week reminded me that Silicon Valley has obviously continued whispering sweet nothings into the ears of their new administration. Their aim? Pressure allies (like us) to tone down those annoying little things called regulations, you know, the sort like “Online Safety” that stop companies from hoovering up your child’s personal information, manipulating teen mental health for profit, and pushing dangerous content under the eyes of our youngsters under the guise of “engagement”.
In exchange, the carrot dangled before Britain is access to markets, trade deals, tariffs softened as well as favouritism in future transatlantic agreements. All we have to do is: just stop being so terribly uptight about online safety.
Here’s the deal. Britain’s Online Safety Act, GDPR, and other protections, as imperfect and porous as they are, have at least tried to stop the digital giants from turning childhood into a data-harvesting bonanza.
But if the UK government capitulates to US pressure, particularly from an administration actively lobbied by Big Tech, it risks rolling back progress at precisely the moment we need more of it, meaning this will result in :
-
Less accountability for platforms promoting dangerous “challenges” and harmful content.
-
Weaker restrictions on how companies collect and monetise children’s data.
-
Fewer requirements to moderate harmful content, even when it’s actively damaging young mental health.
-
More power for tech giants to treat British children like micro-targeted revenue streams in Snapchat filters.
All so Britain can keep its “special relationship” status and maybe, just maybe, get invited to the next birthday bash.
Let’s not forget: this is the same tech sector that’s been repeatedly caught with its trousers down. Whether it’s algorithms that promote eating disorders, the rabbit-holes of extremism, or data privacy gymnastics, these companies don’t exactly have a great track record with protecting kids, unless its their own who are apparently not allowed to use social media !
And now, they want fewer restrictions? That’s like asking your dodgiest neighbour to babysit, not locking either your bedroom or drinks cabinet and giving them the keys to the quad bike. No parent in their right mind would even contemplate that…
If we allow this to happen, it will mean that parents will face an even steeper uphill battle trying to protect their children online and teachers will have to deal with the fallout from digital harm in the classroom. It means our mental health services, already stretched like an Instaslut’s 32A bra over her 42GG chest, will buckle further under the weight of tech-induced anxiety, body dysmorphia, and online addiction, to name but a few.
And crucially, it means more children will be harmed so that trade negotiators can tick a box labelled “digitally progressive”. And by harmed, I mean because a social media platform can quote “Section 230” and walk off into the sunset, more parents will be looking down at the coffin of their child.
Being a global player doesn’t mean rolling over when morals and our national professionalism is held to ransom. It means holding the line, especially when the stakes are our own children’s wellbeing. The UK has long prided itself on leading the way in safety, decency, and dare I say it: common sense. So why, at this critical juncture, would we consider aligning with anyone trying to dismantle every moral, ethical and legitimate barrier we are building between Silicon Valley and your child’s brain development?
Do we want our children to grow up calling Alexa “Mummy”?
Let’s be clear; this is not about going against MAGA or Americans; America is full of brilliant people fighting for online safety too; parents, educators, whistleblowers, tech experts as well as members of the senate and congress. Many of them are horrified by their own government’s tech policies. What this is, is a call to British leadership to grow a backbone, and draw a line in the sand, for the future of your children.
We must not soften our digital safety standards in pursuit of post-Brexit trade crumbs.
We must not ignore the mounting evidence of harm just because a someone with a love of spray tans and toupées has been led to believe that Facebook should be free to run riot.
Here are some actions you can take to try and minimise our risk of the Online Safety Laws being diluted:
-
Contact your MP. Ask them to oppose any weakening of UK tech regulation in trade talks. Maybe it’s time to start trading with other nations too ?
-
Support organisations working to protect children online; they are going need it if regulation takes a hit.
-
Talk to other parents. Awareness is power. Share what’s happening. Don’t let this be quietly done behind closed doors.
And finally, keep your sense of humour, but pick up your bow and arrow, metaphorically speaking. British children deserve a future where their wellbeing matters more than Big Tech’s quarterly earnings. If our reward for abandoning online child safety is chemically-washed meat, perhaps we’ve misunderstood the phrase “clean eating”.
We don’t own our railways or our steelworks anymore. But BigTech has given us a personalised AI assistant that can tell us when our teen cries…
Photo by Gioele Fazzeri
