GP essay question guide
Should governments do more to protect young people online?
A useful answer separates age assurance, harmful design, illegal content, and ordinary speech. It should also test the duties of platforms, parents, schools, and the state.
Unpack this question first: 'Do more' assumes governments already act, so judge whether extra action is needed and what kind. Define 'young people' and name the online harms you mean. Lesson: Reading an essay question: terms and scope
Use this question in writing - Sign in, check the question, then write your response.
Topics: Society and Culture, Science and Technology, Politics and Governance
Three argument directions
Set minimum safeguards
Government can impose common duties when platforms have weak incentives to protect children.
Qualification: Age checks can create privacy risks and can be bypassed.
Regulate design, not every message
Rules aimed at recommendation systems and default settings can reduce exposure without policing all speech.
Qualification: Evidence about which design changes reduce long-term harm is still developing.
Share responsibility
Education and parental support are needed because legal limits cannot cover every device and service.
Qualification: A shared-duty model must not let profitable platforms avoid responsibility.
A model paragraph
Our own paragraph for this question. Copy its moves, not its words.
Governments should do more to protect young people online, but the most useful action targets how platforms are designed rather than every message a child might see. Recommendation systems are built to keep users scrolling, and a 14-year-old usually finds it harder than an adult to stop. A rule that makes safer settings the default for under-18 accounts changes what millions of young users see without anyone having to check each post. Singapore has moved this way by requiring app stores to take steps to keep children away from apps unsuitable for their age. Critics rightly point out that age checks can be dodged and may collect sensitive data. That limit argues for careful design, not for doing nothing, because the alternative leaves parents alone against companies that profit from attention.
How it is built
- Stand: yes, but aim at design, not at every post.
- Reason and case: feeds built for attention; safer defaults and app-store duties.
- Limit and judgement: age checks are imperfect, which calls for better design rather than no action.
Six examples to compare
Singapore Requires App Stores to Protect Young Users
Singapore's app-distribution safety code requires designated app stores to reduce exposure to harmful content and introduce age-assurance measures.
Possible essay use
Singapore's app-distribution safety code requires designated app stores to reduce exposure to harmful content and introduce age-assurance measures.
Limitation
Age assurance may reduce access to harmful material but can create privacy, accuracy, and exclusion risks.
Case or source date: 2025-03-31
Australia Legislates a Social-Media Minimum Age
Australia's 2024 law requires covered social-media platforms to take reasonable steps to stop under-16s from holding accounts.
Possible essay use
governments can shift the duty to protect children online from parents to platforms, by making companies responsible for keeping young users off
Limitation
The law's protective intent does not establish effective age checks or rule out privacy and displacement harms.
Case or source date: 2024-11-29
Singapore Activates Powers Against Online Criminal Harm
Singapore's Online Criminal Harms Act created directions and codes aimed at disrupting online activity used to facilitate specified crimes.
Possible essay use
Singapore's Online Criminal Harms Act created directions and codes aimed at disrupting online activity used to facilitate specified crimes.
Limitation
Disruption powers may reduce harm but require proportionality, transparency, and safeguards against overreach or mistaken blocking.
Case or source date: 2024-02-01
Source: Ministry of Home Affairs
Algorithms: Shaping News, Dividing Views
Algorithmic bias in media feeds shapes what news users see. This often narrows perspectives, creating filter bubbles and risking societal division.
Possible essay use
A September 2021 NYU Stern report concluded that major platforms are not the original or main cause of US polarisation but intensify it.
Limitation
Both studies are about the United States, and the 2023 experiments ran for only three months around one election, so they cannot rule out slower or wider effects elsewhere.
Case or source date: 2021-09-13
Digital Lies: Misinformation's Modern Threat
Digital platforms fuel misinformation, eroding public trust and harming democracy. This reflects modern 'fake news' challenges and concepts like echo chambers.
Possible essay use
QAnon began in October 2017 with anonymous posts on 4chan.
Limitation
QAnon was one of several causes of 6 January, alongside false claims of a stolen election and political mobilisation; it is unfair to say it alone 'led to' the attack.
Case or source date: 2021-01-06
Source: Bellingcat
Social Media Shifts: X, Threads & Trust
Social media is changing with X (Twitter) overhauls and new rivals like Threads. This affects how we talk, trust, and see content online.
Possible essay use
Meta's Threads, launched in July 2023, gained 100 million sign-ups in five days.
Limitation
Sign-ups are not active users, and platform usage figures change quickly and are often reported by the companies themselves, so check recent independent data before comparing platforms.
Case or source date: 2023-07-10
Source: TechCrunch