英国上议院投票支持16岁以下社媒禁令,斯塔默政府倍感压力
Huan Qiu Shi Bao·2026-01-22 22:42

Core Viewpoint - The UK Parliament's House of Lords has passed a resolution to amend existing laws to impose strict restrictions on social media usage for minors under 16, reflecting growing concerns over the impact of social media on youth mental health [1][2]. Group 1: Legislative Developments - The House of Lords voted 261 in favor and 150 against the resolution, which aims to add an amendment to the current Children's Welfare and Schools Bill, prohibiting social media use for those under 16 [1]. - The amendment requires the government to establish a list of banned platforms within a year and urges companies to implement effective age verification systems [1]. - The amendment has garnered support from various political parties, including the Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and some independent members, with even two Labour Party members voting in favor [1]. Group 2: Government Response and Public Consultation - The Labour government, led by Prime Minister Starmer, has expressed strong opposition to the amendment, emphasizing the complexity of the issue and the need for evidence collection and research [1]. - A three-month public consultation has been initiated to gather opinions on whether to ban minors from using social media, establish nighttime usage restrictions, and prevent excessive smartphone use [1]. - The consultation will also assess whether social media platforms should limit or remove certain addictive features [1]. Group 3: Perspectives on Social Media Ban - Proponents of the ban argue that existing evidence indicates social media can negatively impact minors' mental health, and a ban could protect children from harmful content before they reach maturity [2]. - Critics warn that a blanket ban may push youth towards less regulated platforms and emphasize the importance of considering young people's opinions in policy formulation [2]. - The Australian government's similar ban on minors using major social media platforms has intensified discussions in the UK, although it has faced criticism for not effectively reducing risks and potentially disadvantaging vulnerable groups [3].