As a younger, Right-wing lady, I’m continually abused on social media. But I nonetheless do not imagine in a ban for under-16s: SOPHIE CORCORAN

People online hate me. ‘I hope you die,’ they write. ‘I hope you get raped.’ Some of the abuse and threats I receive are simply too extreme to publish here.

Even in the cesspit that social media can be, the amount of venom spat my way is exceptional.

In a typical day, I’ll receive at least 100 messages steeped in loathing, mostly on X where I have a quarter of a million followers – but also across platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.

Whenever I’ve appeared on TV or radio, as I often do, the abuse spikes. Though it mostly comes from Left-wingers, because I’m a Conservative Party member (which my haters laughably call ‘far Right’), many of the insults have nothing to do with my politics.

The hatred is directed at the way I look, the way I speak and my age – I’m 23. And this has been happening since I first became involved in politics, during lockdown, aged 17, as a proudly working-class young woman.

Sticking up for Israel in its war against genocidal Islamism brings out the worst in my critics. ‘Yo, can’t wait for someone to kill you, you c***,’ said ‘Viavaya’. ‘Dirty Zionist bitvh, I know where you work,’ wrote ‘Asim’.

‘Tariq’ told me: ‘Someone will hopefully shoot you and you can join your fellow zios in hell you ginger science experiment.’

‘I hope I never come across you in real life,’ said ‘Aaliyah’, ‘cus ur face will be torn apart u ugly c***.’

And guess what? I’m not even Jewish.

I rise above it as best I can, but anyone who tells you this deluge of filth is not hurtful is being dishonest.

You might imagine, then, that I would be in favour of Keir Starmer’s latest brainwave: a ban on social media for under-16s. In fact, I believe it would make these problems even worse – and be an attack on the fundamentals of good parenting.

This week, following pressure from dozens of Labour backbenchers, the Prime Minister vowed to implement such a ban (once a consultation is completed this year.)

None of the platforms, such as Facebook, X, TikTok or Instagram, will get a ‘free pass’, the PM said, and legislation is also being considered to regulate the access young people have to AIs such as ChatGPT.

This goes to the root of everything that is wrong with his government.

Keir and his bossy MPs believe they have been elected to be our nannies. Instead of recognising that the responsibility for raising children belongs in the home, he wants to impose ever more intrusive, big-state restrictions.

For a whole stack of reasons, it won’t work. We know this because Australia has tried a similar ban and it has proved not only ineffective but counter-productive.

Aussie teens can easily circumvent the ban using simple VPN technology that allows users to hide their location as well as using fake birthday details – and the social media companies seem quietly happy to let them bypass the rules.

More than that, though, it is a shocking assault on families, undermining parental authority and treating everyone – adults and children alike – as though they cannot be trusted.

Yet despite the obvious flaws in Starmer’s wheeze, just as with the similarly ineffective Online Safety Act, few people have been willing to speak out against the restrictions before they come into place. Even Kemi Badenoch, who campaigned for the Tory leadership under the unofficial slogan ‘Stop Banning Things’, has given the measure her support.

Kemi is backing it, I believe, purely because she thinks it will be a popular policy.

But Tories should demand more responsibility from parents, not less. It is not the government’s role to make sure three-year-olds aren’t being given iPads to shut them up, that ten-year-old boys aren’t watching porn on their phones and 13-year-old girls aren’t logging on to anorexia websites.

Parents just need to do their job properly.

It’s a fallacy to claim that good parenting is impossible without draconian laws. By the time I was 13, I was using social media regularly – within firm guidelines laid down by my parents.

At the time, the internet was even less regulated than it is now. But I came to no harm: I wasn’t stalked by predators, bullied by classmates or targeted by extremists, because my mum and dad took full responsibility for keeping me safe.

It wasn’t until I was 17, an age when even Starmer believes I should have unlimited access to the internet, that the deluge of hatred and threats began.

And that was purely because I was prepared to be vocal in my opposition to Labour policies.

When I was younger, my parents had all my logins for Facebook and other platforms. They watched, read and checked what I was doing. I wasn’t allowed to sit using my phone all day and I didn’t even take my phone to school with me until I got to sixth form.

I wasn’t always delighted about this but I accepted the rules and I knew that if I broke them, I’d lose all my social media access.

On top of that, I’d be grounded, losing my freedom to play my beloved football at the weekend and other valuable rights.

These things mattered to me and my parents knew it. Those were my personal circumstances. Everyone’s needs and experiences are different. But a blanket government ban takes no account of that.

I believe responsible social media use ought to be taught from primary school.

How else are young people supposed to learn how to distinguish right from wrong online, or what is real and what is not?

Imposing a ban until they’re 16 and then unleashing them on social media is a recipe for catastrophe.

It is certainly true that children should not be spending all their time on iPads: it’s harmful for mental health and fuels anxiety, insecurity and even addiction. These concerns are legitimate. But protecting young people from all that is a job for parents, not the State.

Like Rishi Sunak before him (who spent his time in office working to ban smoking at all ages) Starmer has reached the point of trying to make things illegal rather than legislating with a coherent programme for government.

And like teeth-brushing lessons in schools or ‘free’ –that is, funded by taxpayers – breakfast clubs, he sees the State as a disciplinarian, instead of encouraging real parents to perform their unique role better.

The underlying socialist message is clear: Don’t worry about doing the hard work at home, the government will always step in.

The solution isn’t more laws. It’s better parenting. And no nanny state policy will ever replace that.

Sophie Corcoran is a political commentator.