Charlotte Salomon: The Conservatives are right to defend childhood online and draw the line at 16
Ask why this angle was chosen.
Charlotte Salomon has worked in political communications, and was a Conservative candidate at the 2024 Election she is now studying for the bar.
We have built a comforting story around the idea of “digital natives”.
Teenagers, we’re told, are born into technology. They understand it instinctively. They are quicker, sharper, more adaptable than the adults trying to supervise them. And so we reassure ourselves that parents can manage it at home, that the state should keep out, that young people will figure it out.
It is an attractive argument. Some say it’s a Conservative one. I disagree.
Being a digital native does not mean being digitally protected. It does not mean understanding how data is harvested, how algorithms profile behaviour, or how consent operates in law.
Fluency is not comprehension. And confidence is not consent.
That is where this debate really starts.
Kemi Badenoch is right to argue that under-16s should not be on social media. It is no surprise that public support is growing. But beneath the surface of this debate lies something deeper that we cannot afford to ignore. This is not just about screen time, culture, or whether teenagers spend too many hours indoors. It is about data. It is about law. And it is about whether we are prepared to keep pretending that children are giving “informed consent” to systems they do not, and cannot, truly understand.
When Parliament set the digital age of consent at 13 under the Data Protection Act 2018, it chose the lowest age permitted under Article 8 of the UK GDPR. Thirteen. From that birthday onwards, a child can legally consent to the processing of their personal data by online services without parental involvement.
At the time, this was presented as pragmatic. Children were already online. The law needed to reflect reality. But the digital world of 2018 is not the digital world of 2026. And even then, we were asking the wrong question.
Under UK GDPR, consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.” That is not a soft standard. It requires an individual to understand what data is collected, how it is used, who it is shared with, and what rights they retain.
Now ask yourself honestly: when was the last time you read a privacy policy in full? (No judgment). Consent fatigue is real, and all of us have succumbed to it at one time or another.
Now picture a 13-year-old inside an ecosystem engineered around infinite scroll, dopamine spikes, dark patterns, loot boxes, manufactured FOMO and relentless peer validation.
If we are going to talk seriously about social media and the online world, we have to understand the wider architecture of data-driven design. These platforms are not neutral public squares. They are commercial systems engineered to maximise engagement, …
Ask why this angle was chosen.
Charlotte Salomon has worked in political communications, and was a Conservative candidate at the 2024 Election she is now studying for the bar.
We have built a comforting story around the idea of “digital natives”.
Teenagers, we’re told, are born into technology. They understand it instinctively. They are quicker, sharper, more adaptable than the adults trying to supervise them. And so we reassure ourselves that parents can manage it at home, that the state should keep out, that young people will figure it out.
It is an attractive argument. Some say it’s a Conservative one. I disagree.
Being a digital native does not mean being digitally protected. It does not mean understanding how data is harvested, how algorithms profile behaviour, or how consent operates in law.
Fluency is not comprehension. And confidence is not consent.
That is where this debate really starts.
Kemi Badenoch is right to argue that under-16s should not be on social media. It is no surprise that public support is growing. But beneath the surface of this debate lies something deeper that we cannot afford to ignore. This is not just about screen time, culture, or whether teenagers spend too many hours indoors. It is about data. It is about law. And it is about whether we are prepared to keep pretending that children are giving “informed consent” to systems they do not, and cannot, truly understand.
When Parliament set the digital age of consent at 13 under the Data Protection Act 2018, it chose the lowest age permitted under Article 8 of the UK GDPR. Thirteen. From that birthday onwards, a child can legally consent to the processing of their personal data by online services without parental involvement.
At the time, this was presented as pragmatic. Children were already online. The law needed to reflect reality. But the digital world of 2018 is not the digital world of 2026. And even then, we were asking the wrong question.
Under UK GDPR, consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.” That is not a soft standard. It requires an individual to understand what data is collected, how it is used, who it is shared with, and what rights they retain.
Now ask yourself honestly: when was the last time you read a privacy policy in full? (No judgment). Consent fatigue is real, and all of us have succumbed to it at one time or another.
Now picture a 13-year-old inside an ecosystem engineered around infinite scroll, dopamine spikes, dark patterns, loot boxes, manufactured FOMO and relentless peer validation.
If we are going to talk seriously about social media and the online world, we have to understand the wider architecture of data-driven design. These platforms are not neutral public squares. They are commercial systems engineered to maximise engagement, …
Charlotte Salomon: The Conservatives are right to defend childhood online and draw the line at 16
Ask why this angle was chosen.
Charlotte Salomon has worked in political communications, and was a Conservative candidate at the 2024 Election she is now studying for the bar.
We have built a comforting story around the idea of “digital natives”.
Teenagers, we’re told, are born into technology. They understand it instinctively. They are quicker, sharper, more adaptable than the adults trying to supervise them. And so we reassure ourselves that parents can manage it at home, that the state should keep out, that young people will figure it out.
It is an attractive argument. Some say it’s a Conservative one. I disagree.
Being a digital native does not mean being digitally protected. It does not mean understanding how data is harvested, how algorithms profile behaviour, or how consent operates in law.
Fluency is not comprehension. And confidence is not consent.
That is where this debate really starts.
Kemi Badenoch is right to argue that under-16s should not be on social media. It is no surprise that public support is growing. But beneath the surface of this debate lies something deeper that we cannot afford to ignore. This is not just about screen time, culture, or whether teenagers spend too many hours indoors. It is about data. It is about law. And it is about whether we are prepared to keep pretending that children are giving “informed consent” to systems they do not, and cannot, truly understand.
When Parliament set the digital age of consent at 13 under the Data Protection Act 2018, it chose the lowest age permitted under Article 8 of the UK GDPR. Thirteen. From that birthday onwards, a child can legally consent to the processing of their personal data by online services without parental involvement.
At the time, this was presented as pragmatic. Children were already online. The law needed to reflect reality. But the digital world of 2018 is not the digital world of 2026. And even then, we were asking the wrong question.
Under UK GDPR, consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.” That is not a soft standard. It requires an individual to understand what data is collected, how it is used, who it is shared with, and what rights they retain.
Now ask yourself honestly: when was the last time you read a privacy policy in full? (No judgment). Consent fatigue is real, and all of us have succumbed to it at one time or another.
Now picture a 13-year-old inside an ecosystem engineered around infinite scroll, dopamine spikes, dark patterns, loot boxes, manufactured FOMO and relentless peer validation.
If we are going to talk seriously about social media and the online world, we have to understand the wider architecture of data-driven design. These platforms are not neutral public squares. They are commercial systems engineered to maximise engagement, …
