We are letting the 20% divide us
I have been to many events over the last couple of years, and heard many speeches. Most of what is said comes and goes. You often hear similar sentiments repeated. But one thing that Baroness Beeban Kidron said at an event in November 2025 has stayed with me. The room was filled with people who cared about online safety for young people. Beeban stated “we all agree on 80%, it is just the last 20% we don’t agree on”. She continued, “let’s focus on that 80%, and work together to see how we can agree on the 20%”. This sentiment has stuck with me. So much so, I talked about it during my opening speech at The Table last week. I don’t think it has ever been so pertinent as it is now. As campaigners tear each other apart, everyone loses.
The online safety community has never been so divided. Over the past two weeks, the proposed social media ban for under-16s has split the community into two. Two camps have developed, with the media framing those camps as “pro-ban” and “anti-ban”. The debate is heated because everyone cares. Everyone wants children to be safer online, and everyone thinks that their solution is the right one. I believe a ban on social media for under-16s is too blunt of an instrument to tackle such a nuanced issue. I have previously written extensively about why I sit on this side of the fence, and it would be futile to relitigate these points. In many respects, what I am addressing now is a far bigger issue. It is important to acknowledge how much I respect everybody who is campaigning on this issue, whatever side of the debate they sit on. Much of politics and debate is culture wars fought by people who do not really believe in what they are saying. This debate is different. People on all sides have done, and are doing, brilliant work, and the primary reason they do it is because they care.
The issue is, as campaigners, we are so much closer to each other than anyone realises. Young people are all being harmed online, and platforms are not doing enough to combat this. Parents feel helpless in the face of rising harms online, not knowing where to turn. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they give their teenage children access to social media, they are opening up their child to the harms that it brings. If they prohibit their child, then their child will suffer FOMO, and their child may seek to access social media and be successful without them knowing. Teachers similarly are stuck in a helpless position. Undoubtedly, we all agree that harms exist, and the status quo must change. This is the 80% in the original analogy.
The 20% is where it starts to unravel. As we have just explored, we are all in agreement that harms exist, and something must be done about it. The disagreement is about what must be done about it. Open letters to the Government are the easiest way to chart the two sides of the debate. There have been two dominant letters sent to the Government. One signed by 45 online safety organisations, experts and bereaved parents, cautioning against a ban. These organisations notably included the NSPCC, Molly Rose Foundation, 5 Rights and FlippGen. Similarly, a letter signed by celebrities like Hugh Grant and Sophie Winkleman, as well as campaigners like Esther Ghey, have been sent advocating for a ban. Alongside the letters, the framing of the debate has further divided campaigners. The debate has been framed as a binary choice between ban and no-ban, with no inbetween. We are left with two extremes: ban or no ban. All organisations and campaigners are forced to pick a side. The choice leads to categorisation. All those who oppose the ban are framed as lobbyists for big tech. All those who are supporters of the ban, are framed as adults dictating for children, and don’t want children to have fun. The problem is, having worked with people on both sides of the debate, neither of these categorisations are true.
The cost of division is stark. It helps no one but the systems we are all trying to change! Whilst energy is spent debating what reform looks like, it is not spent on campaigning for the change itself. Put simply, the house is on fire, and everyone is arguing about the brand of fire extinguisher we should use to put it out. Instead of arguing about how we put out the fire, we are forgetting that we simply need a firebreak. It also leads to the development or further entrenching of existing silos, and more and more organisations working in isolation. The idea that as another organisation is on the other side of one aspect of the debate, so we cannot, or should not, collaborate. When a movement works together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But conversely, when a movement is divided amongst itself, the whole is smaller than the sum of its parts.
It is easy to lose yourself in the ins and outs of what change should look like. Easy to forget about the bigger picture, and focus on perfect solutions. I am not saying that we should all agree and simply compromise. This is both unrealistic and unproductive. These dividing lines are very real. We all believe our preferred approach is right. Furthermore, the debate is healthy. But it is unhealthy when it has a detrimental impact on the overall movement. Without realising, the 80% we all agree on disintegrates, whilst the 20% we disagree on becomes the 100% focussed on. Instead of working towards that 80%, campaigners work to persuade the other side why their 20% is right. However, this does not have to be the case.
On Wednesday 21st January, FlippGen and Beyond hosted The Table, an event which brought together 70 of the key players in the digital safety game. Amongst the attendees were influencers, social media employees, campaigners, and other stakeholders. The people sat around the table and talked. The reality was, there was so much more that people agreed on than disagreed on. No one sat around those tables wanted children to be scrolling for 8 hours per day. No one wanted children to see explicit videos and images. I started the event with this 80%/20% analogy, and this is how the day went. We made an effort to invite people from across the “ban vs no ban” spectrum. Inevitably, there were disagreements, but everyone left realising they were much closer in position than when they started.
The Table shows us that common ground can be found. History tells us that we must work to find this common ground soon. Campaigns which spend all of their energy looking inwards debating the 20%, find it hard to change anything. This blog is a call to action. As campaigners, we must come together and remember why we campaign: to make the online world safer. Unity does not require uniformity of opinion, or a lack of debate. In fact, the opposite is true. Debates occur, people can disagree agreeably, and the campaign is stronger for it. However, debate within a movement should never, and must never, come at the expense of the movement itself. As campaigners, we must focus on the 80% we all agree on, and come together around a table, perhaps even literally, to talk about how we can find a 20% that works for everyone.
