JAN MOIR: Whatever Harry and Meghan say, parents have some responsibility to police what their children see online
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had nothing to do with the recent US court case that found Meta – the company behind Facebook and Instagram – and YouTube responsible for negligence in a landmark social media addiction ruling. But that hasn't stopped them rushing to make a statement.
'This verdict is a reckoning' and 'justice has caught up to Big Tech,' they boomed, with all the certitude of bearded Old Testament bods preaching at the temple gates.
'For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach… The truth has been heard and precedent has been set.'
Who writes this guff for them? Ezekiel the Wise?
Meghan and Harry are clearly of the opinion that social media platforms are the evil of the age for children, but absolutely fine when flogging jam, while ever-so-gently using your tiny daughter by filming the back of her head to include in your Instagram promos.
Let's be honest, the only reason for doing this is not for Lilibet's benefit, but to show off what a great florist-cum-philanthropist/happy-family-marmalade-making matriarch Mummy Meghan is – look at her!
She can do it all; raise her kids, raise important issues, raise her profile, raise the lid on another bubbling vat of raspberry spread without getting a stain or crease on her white linen designer separates. Isn't she a marvel? And all the while encouraging customers to buy, say, the limited edition As Ever Pause & Pour set, containing two tins of tea and a bookmark for £45 sterling, including taxes and shipping.
For Easter, there is also a £191 As Ever Garden Tea Bloom Box including fresh flowers, a tin of tea and a jar of honey.
Meghan and Harry are clearly of the opinion that social media platforms are the evil of the age for children, but absolutely fine when flogging jam, writes Jan Moir
The couple are right about one thing. There is indeed plenty of calculating behaviour out there on the internet
What I worry about most regarding online dangers is not the safety of children but the mental health of all these marshmallow-brained content creators and customers who've been seduced into believing that As Ever products are special enough to justify the high price and the hype.
Meghan and Harry are right about one thing. There is indeed plenty of calculating behaviour out there on the internet. And sometimes it is right under our nose, ponging of peonies, jasmine and desperation.
But at least they are trying to help. Two years ago, the couple launched a Parents' Network scheme to provide support for those whose children have suffered from the harmful effects of social media. They have also called for stronger regulations for technology firms.
No wonder this ruling has pleased them, as it has many worried mothers, fathers and guardians around the world. 'We stand with every parent and young person who refused to be silenced,' the Sussexes grandly stated after the judgment, heard in the Los Angeles Superior Court this week following a trial that lasted more than a month – but they don't really, do they?
On a sidebar issue, one could argue Thomas Markle was a parent who refused to be silenced and has been ostracised by the couple for eight years for his trouble.
With Meghan and Harry, it all depends on what kind of parent you are and whether or not your curated portfolio of fashionable opinions dovetail with theirs. Of course, they're supporting this important issue with the best of intentions but, as ever, it's the underlying hypocrisy I can't stand.
Certainly, the Sussexes are part of a groundswell of antipathy against perceived online harms. Social media has been banned for under-16s in Australia while the British Government is consulting on similar moves.
A recent case in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay £280million in damages for failing to protect young users from child predators on Instagram and Facebook. All this must be good news, even if it is too little, too late. Yet instead of blaming Big Tech for everything, don't parents have some responsibilities when it comes to the time their children spend online?
The LA case was filed by a young woman from California identified as Kaley, who claimed these platforms were intentionally addictive, affecting her mental health in her formative years. (She also accused Snap and TikTok, which both settled before the trial began.)
Now 20, Kaley said she started using YouTube at six and Instagram when she was 11. As a direct result, she developed anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.
In court, she told of how her addiction continues to disrupt her adult life, compelling her to sneak out of work to scroll and spend hours manipulating her appearance using filters on the apps.
The jury sided with her, concluding the companies' actions significantly contributed to her distress. They awarded Kaley £4.5million in damages, an outcome that could influence thousands of other cases against social media companies.
Come on. Were there no adults on hand to stop barely post-toddler Kaley from accessing hours of brain-rotting content every day?
And why did it affect her so severely and not millions of other children? Teen and tween mental health is a complex issue, which is no doubt what Meta will argue in its inevitable appeal. For its part, YouTube claims it is a 'responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site'.
This week the Duke and Duchess of Sussex gloated that it had been proved that 'the harm isn't in parenting, it's in product design' – but is that strictly true?
We can't lay everything at Mark Zuckerberg's door, tempting as that may be.
And while I am sad that Kaley has had a difficult time, she is a young woman now, with a job and responsibilities and agency over her previous addiction.
If she is constantly sneaking out of work to use beauty filters or give herself bunny ears on Snapchat, surely that's on her – and no one else. Not even Meghan and Harry.
Gandy's a model dad
Male model David Gandy, best known for his dedication to posing in Marks and Sparks Y-fronts, says his two daughters won't be allowed to model until they are 18 years old. At last, a little bit of sense from a celebrity dad who wants to keep his beautiful children out of the limelight until they can handle it. A safeguard that has become shockingly rare.
Beep, beep, exterminate, exterminate. Many people think Melania Trump has no sense of humour, or indeed no sense of anything at all, except style. They are so wrong. The First Lady is hilarious, but her humour is subversive, perhaps too highly cultivated for some.
Consider the evidence. First, she married Donald Trump, which has to be the joke of the century. And this week she appeared alongside a humanoid robot at a digital conference in Washington.
'Which is which?' cried the baffled audience as the two automatons shuffled onstage.
Melania seemed very interested in the fact that the AI robot takes care of household tasks such as laundry and cleaning. 'Vill it sleep with ze husband, too?' she didn't ask, before ordering one for each official residence.
Murder shows AI's dark side
Prime Minister Keir Starmer must be wondering, as his lawyer soul always does, if a social media ban for under-16s could withstand the inevitable legal challenges that would follow.
Look at the travails of the Australian government, which has had to rush through last-minute changes to its landmark ban ahead of a legal challenge from social media site Reddit. At the upcoming trial, Reddit will argue the ban is not only 'invalid', 'ineffective' and 'disproportionate' but also infringes on fundamental rights.
That's the problem, isn't it? First-world youngsters with smartphones feel they have a basic human right to play video games, stream cartoons and explore the internet without interference from dinosaur adults. And they will outfox the laws and safeguards at every turn.
The case of Tristan Roberts, jailed for 22 years for killing his mother, shows what happens when truly disturbed teenagers access the darker corners of the internet. And there isn't much any law can do.
Tristan Roberts, from North Wales, was jailed for 22 years for killing his mother
Roberts used the controversial gamers' messaging app Discord to post about his plans. He also used Chinese AI DeepSeek to search for tips on what weapons a 'non-experienced killer' should use.
When it rejected his requests, he merely tapped in that he was only doing research for a book. 'Oh, that's all right then, Tristan. Get yourself down to The Range and buy a hammer,' AI replied.
I'm paraphrasing here, but in essence this is what happened. Two weeks later the unhinged youth bludgeoned his blameless mother to death with his shiny new hammer.
AI is clever but easy to fool. It functions only on statistical pattern matching on data, lacking intuitive understanding of humans in the real world. Like the instincts of The Range cashier, who was so alarmed by the sullen Roberts buying a hammer and knives on his 18th birthday, the very first day he was legally able to, that she kept the receipts.
AI has no such apprehensions or doubts, how could it? It only knows what the data tells it. And that is what is truly terrifying.
Back to Harry and Meghan, who have condemned a petition complaining about their grand, quasi-royal tour to Australia in April. The petition, listed on Change.org, is entitled 'No Taxpayer-Funding or Official Support for Harry & Meghan's Private Visit to Australia' has gained nearly 40,000 signatures – and the ire of the couple. They have called it 'ridiculous' and 'misinformation', stating that the trip is being privately funded anyway.
But if it is so ridiculous, why bother responding to it in the first place? When Queen Elizabeth visited Australia in 1970 she had to contend with the ferocious Cook Bicentenary Protests, in which thousands of aboriginal people remonstrated about their overlooked status.
At the time, it was one of the biggest protests in Australian history, but did HM instruct an aide to send off a furious riposte bristling with outrage at this slur on her existence? Of course not.
If Australians don't want British royalty plus one on their republican home turf, they have a perfect right to express their opinions and misgivings. And to dismiss their concerns, no matter how ridiculous the Sussexes might find them, is just downright rude.
