Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods
Debate between Chi Onwurah and Samantha NiblettWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Chi Onwurah
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his work on the Committee. It is always incisive and rooted in a desire to get the evidence. I agree with him. I understand the big tech companies are in No. 10 Downing Street this morning talking—or I hope listening—to the Prime Minister about this very subject: the importance of children’s wellbeing in digital technology. That in itself is testament to the fact that they have not done enough. We should not have got to this place, where our children are living through the harms that I spoke about and that the Committee heard about in its evidence. The companies’ incentives, driven by advertising revenue and profit making, should be in second place to children’s wellbeing and the safety of the products and services that they put out to our young people—and indeed to all our citizens.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee’s launch of a new inquiry on digital childhoods. Like her, I sit on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and was disturbed when I asked the big tech companies how much money they make from children. They said that they do not make much because they cannot make advertising revenue from them, so I asked whether it was altruistic—to which there was tumbleweed and then the admission: “Actually, no, it creates a user base”. I am paraphrasing, but even the use of the word “user” with reference to our children is deeply concerning.
I welcome this inquiry. I believe plenty of evidence already demonstrates a direct link between being miserable and an increased use of online devices. I welcome the fact that we will hear from experts, and that we can be guided by their guidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given last year’s report and the evidence from this inquiry, in addition to the social media ban consultation that is going at the moment, the Government might not just listen and agree, but actually do something about it?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for her question and her contribution to the Committee, which is always driven by a desire to ensure that technology works for people in this country. Her questioning of the tech companies about their approach to children was very illustrative of a lack of concern about the outcomes on children. The financial rewards are certainly there in the long term. However, the companies should be doing the research that we are and understanding the impact of these vast money-making machines on young people and children. That we are having to do that, and that they cannot speak effectively to the safety of their products and services, is remarkable. I want to emphasise that they bring benefits as well, but it is not appropriate that this should be unregulated and that our children should be exposed to uncertain, unknown and uncontrolled harms.
Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms
Debate between Chi Onwurah and Samantha Niblett
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her Committee’s report, and the team behind it who have drafted it. The report contains concerns and recommendations about digital marketing. WhatsApp is a direct communication tool, for good and for bad, which very few people engage with as though it is a classic social media platform such as Facebook, Instagram or X; it is a place for private conversation, and Meta prides itself on its data being encrypted and secure.
Having said that it would not do so, Meta will now start serving up ads under the guise of advertisers wanting to go where their audiences are, which translates as organisations wanting to make more money through targeted marketing, including Meta, which has 3 billion users of WhatsApp worldwide. If we have our WhatsApp connected to Facebook and Instagram, we may get more personalised ads. Never have I wanted to disconnect my WhatsApp from my Instagram and Facebook more. Already, when we click on Instagram, it follows us to our Facebook feeds. There is no escaping it, so views are being shaped and influenced relentlessly by the organisations that drive the most revenue to the platform owners.
With reference to the recommendations in this report about controlling digital advertising, does my hon. Friend agree that we should be able to communicate with our loved ones without being constantly sold to and influenced, and that we should always have options to opt out for the sake of our own mental health?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for championing safe and effective technology, and for the points she has made. She is absolutely right. First, it is essential that the technology be properly regulated, and that regulation be based on principles, so WhatsApp and user-to-user communication should be subject to the same principles-based regulatory environment as content communication. Secondly, we must be able to opt out, and to reset the algorithms that drive the advertising we receive. Thirdly and finally, digital advertising is unfortunately a free-for-all, with very little regulation or control. If consumers are to be adequately protected, that needs to change.