Algorithms maximised for profit

Hannah Ponting, Liverpool student

The recent proposal by Keir Starmer, before he resigned as prime minister, to ban social media for under-16s has created a polarising debate.

For some, social media plays a positive role, a hub for both entertainment and education, helping to develop connections and friendships with people from across the world – an escape from difficult circumstances at home or school.

However, social media can be damaging, spending hours ‘doomscrolling’, addicted, or affected by harmful online content and cyberbullying.

Why do so many young people spend so much time online?

Under capitalism, social media is run for profit. User engagement and attention are products to be sold.

Algorithms are optimised to maximise profit. That means it is inevitable that it is designed to be addictive.

Social media plays a massive role in young people’s social lives and in youth culture. Removing it without offering them anything else to do, will leave them bored and looking for alternatives. Many will look for ways to bypass these laws or move towards less regulated platforms, which are even more likely to become a hotbed for harmful content.

Others will have nowhere to go. This is part of a broader phenomenon – many young people feel increasingly isolated and pessimistic about their futures.

Without access to decent local libraries, many students rely on video lessons on YouTube to revise for exams. Without youth clubs to go to and the high cost of travel, many young people don’t have any option but to connect with friends online, instead of in-person. Without fully funded local gyms, parks, sports teams, and other recreational activities, many people look towards online communities to develop their hobbies.

It’s an increasingly bleak future for youth in Britain. Almost one million young people ‘not in education, employment or training’ (NEET). Many send off hundreds of job applications, receiving nothing, or only AI responses.

With prices going up without wages keeping up, many face a reality in which they have no hope of owning a house, car, or even having a stable job.

The Labour Party boasts that this ban will ‘give kids their childhood back’. But without funding to back this up, these are empty words.

Youth clubs, mental health services, parks, public transport, libraries, and safe, free areas for young people to congregate are vital. Underinvestment in young people’s future is a recipe for disaster.

The responsibility for managing the effects of social media is being unfairly placed onto the people who use it, particularly young people, rather than the big businesses which control these algorithms.

Instead, these platforms should be run as socially useful tools, with the genuine needs of those who use them as a focus, rather than being run as businesses looking to maximise profit. That requires nationalisation.

They should also not be viewed as easy substitutes for properly funded local services, including youth services, but instead be part of a coordinated socialist model of society, where human need is treated as the foremost priority, not a secondary thought after profit.

Who’s in control?

Emily Lyndon, Youth worker

Keir Starmer told us that under-16s will be banned from social media in order to keep them safe. Yet, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old. Which is it?

Can children be criminally responsible in the eyes of the law, and simultaneously be too vulnerable to use Snapchat or Instagram? This is just another example of the utter hypocrisy that permeated his time as Labour leader.

The responsibility falls on the individual, rather than a genuine programme to improve the quality of life for ordinary people.

Parents, guardians, and educators lack access to training and support when it comes to online safety – crucial to keeping young people safe online.

What is there for young people to do? Over 1,000 youth centres have closed since 2010. Young people have limited access to safe spaces.

Under-16s will absolutely continue to use social media. But now there will be stigma and even less support when things go wrong.

The decision is a lazy effort to pass policy, seemingly doing something, while washing their hands of all responsibility to make the internet safer.

No one is denying the harm that can come as a result of unregulated social media.

Social media can act as a lifeline for young people, fostering community. It is also a way for young people to engage in politics, with large numbers of young people aligning with left-wing ideas. A ban could stifle political development.

Rather than bans and restrictions, we need the billionaires who push the algorithms to be held accountable. Social media could be regulated by communities. Yet, here we are, acknowledging the harm, and holding no one responsible to account.

While capitalism exists, social media is always going to be a dangerous place. Online trends, pressure, and exploitation go unchecked, because of the profit motive that drives it.

Now with more access than ever, we should be mounting pressure on the tech billionaires. Online spaces should be safe for all users, especially children.

This could be achieved with genuine workers’ control, community moderators, and restrictions on algorithms and the use of AI.