If the tragic deaths of Molly Russell and Olly Stephens haven’t led to a safer internet, what will?

Social media giants shouldn’t need to be legislated against to keep our children safe

Online safety should be a “zero-sum issue”. Who would contest the idea that encouraging self-harm or other violence should be legislated against?

The Government ostensibly agrees. Way back in May 2021, it published its draft Online Safety Bill, designed to make Britain the “safest place in the world to go online”, whilst still defending free expression.

It came partly as a result of the publicity following two tragic teenage deaths: 14-year-old Molly Russell and 13-year-old Olly Stephens, whose parents attribute at least partial blame to social media. They are exasperated in equal measure with the social media giants’ inactivity and the fact that the Bill has still not passed into law.

Lest we forget, Molly Russell took her own life in 2017 after watching images of self-harm and suicide on Instagram and Pinterest. Just over three years later, Olly Stephens was stabbed having been lured to a field by teenagers who had plotted his death over social media.

More from Opinion

Molly and Olly’s parents have become enforced allies, united in grief and frustration. Molly’s father Ian compared the way social media companies currently operate to “putting cars on the road without testing them on crash dummies first”. Olly’s mother Amanda called on the Government to take the issues “seriously” and stop delaying. Every family has a vested increase in the outcome.

Last weekend, a group of insistent teens told me unequivocally that we “olds” could not possibly understand their lives because of social media. “It’s different from your day. Everything happens there” was the gist of an argument I’ve heard for the past decade.

With my day job as a teacher, it is impossible to go through a week without becoming aware of another social media incident: from bullying to “beef”. Sometimes, it is the kind of insult children have always slung: “she’s a loser”, “he’s so ugly” – only in contemporary slang.

The huge difference is that it does not stay quietly within small groups but is broadcast to a mass audience with the victim’s name attached. There is a clear course of action for teachers who become aware of such matters, but why is all the emphasis placed on responding after the event? Where is the pre-emptive action: self-regulation and legislation?

At Molly Russell’s inquest, while Meta (Facebook and Instagram) argued stubbornly that posts which she had seen encouraging suicide were safe, Pinterest admitted when Molly was using it, the site “was not safe”. Both agreed regulation was necessary. So, why haven’t they acted?

We all know social media giants could change their rules and products if they chose. Elon Musk’s self-destruction of Twitter – changing things just because he can – proves how easy it would be to do so because it’s the right thing to do.

We see such regulations in action elsewhere. In a warped morality system that echoes Hollywood and television, so-called sexual content is so quickly clamped down on – unlike images glamourising violence. Swearing is also quickly dealt with.

Yes, it is important that the government stops dithering and passes the Online Safety Bill into legislation in December. However, it is also incumbent on the big social media giants to look in the mirror and grow a pair. They shouldn’t need to be legislated against to keep our children safe.

Most Read By Subscribers