Online hostility is something I face daily. Messages such as, “I hope you die,” or “I hope you get raped,” flood my inbox, with some of the abuse being too severe to share publicly.

Even within the often toxic landscape of social media, the level of animosity directed at me stands out as particularly intense.

Every day, I receive upwards of 100 vitriolic messages, primarily on X, where my follower count stands at a quarter of a million. However, the hate extends across platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.

Whenever I make an appearance on television or radio, which happens regularly, the volume of abuse increases. Although much of it comes from those on the political left, due to my membership in the Conservative Party—often inaccurately labeled as “far Right” by detractors—many of the attacks are unrelated to my political stance.

Criticism often targets my appearance, the way I speak, and my age—I’m 23. This barrage of negativity has been a constant since I first ventured into politics at 17, embracing my identity as a proud, working-class young woman during the lockdown.

Supporting Israel amidst its conflict with genocidal Islamism particularly incites ire from my critics. Comments like, “Yo, can’t wait for someone to kill you, you c***,” from ‘Viavaya,’ and threats such as, “Dirty Zionist bitvh, I know where you work,” from ‘Asim,’ exemplify the severity of the backlash I encounter.

‘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.

In a typical day I receive at least 100 messages steeped in loathing, mostly on X where I have a quarter of a million followers but also on Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, says Sophie Corcoran

I believe Keir Starmer’s latest brainwave, a ban on social media for under-16s, would make these problems even worse – and be an attack on the fundamentals of good parenting

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 is not the government’s role to make sure that ten-year-old boys aren’t watching porn on their phones and 13-year-old girls aren’t logging on to anorexia websites

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.