PARENTS used to worry that their children would come to harm outside the home: hit by a car on a busy road, lured into a stranger’s vehicle, or exposed to alcohol or recreational drugs. Nowadays, many are more exercised by online danger that is near to hand from the devices that consume so much of children’s time. Sensing a growing anxiety, the Government launched on Monday something that it described as “the world’s most ambitious consultation on social media”. This, it said, would “gather insights from the public on how to keep children safe online across social media, AI chatbots and gaming platforms”. Some see the consultation as the first step on the road to following Australia’s lead in banning social media for the under-16s, a measure supported by the Bishop of Oxford (News, 23 January) and, reportedly, by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Whether there should be a minimum age for social-media use is among the questions that the consultation will ask, but, rightly, not the only one: there are also crucial questions about overnight social-media curfews, how to strengthen age verification, and whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features, such as scrolling and auto-play. Some will argue that the Government is kicking this important matter into the long grass and should take firmer action more quickly, by banning social media for the under-16s now. But it is wise not to use a blunt instrument on a complex problem. As the consultation shows, social-media use is one among myriad issues. It is also important, as Dr Croft argued in his recent lecture, that young people’s voices be heard; and it is encouraging that the Government says that they are to be consulted.

The loudest voices in this debate are not necessarily the wisest; nor is it clear that quick fixes will also be long-term. Most would agree that children of primary-school age should be protected (it is not at all clear why a nine-or ten-year-old needs to own a smartphone or use social media). For secondary-school pupils, however, two questions should be asked: would a social-media ban be workable, and would it be wise? On the first question, Dr Lucy Foulkes, a research psychologist at the University of Oxford, has said: “I have yet to see a verification method that teens cannot easily overcome.” On the second, as children’s charities have warned, a ban could lead young people to seek access to wilder and less regulated parts of the internet. It could also leave them woefully under-prepared for using social media responsibly when they reach the legal age.

Technology companies should be required to design platforms that are safer, as some, such as Roblox, have attempted to do; but, while it is widely agreed that children should not be given free rein online, they do need to learn their way safely round the digital world. Parents and guardians need to have conversations about dangers online; but, as in offline matters, young people need enough freedom to begin to face the world independently. Churches that minister to them have, like other mentors, an opportunity to encourage the use of social media with prudence, fairness, robustness, and self-control — virtues in which, it has to be said, plenty of adult Christians whose childhoods were more or less sans internet do not always excel.