The UK government is to ban social media for under 16 year olds in a landmark decision that will impact generations to come.
The government has shared plans to use the same model for a social media ban as Australia, which covers user-to-user platforms whose purpose is to enable social interaction and allow users to post material alongside algorithms.
This means the ban includes platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. Messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal will not be included in the ban.
The government will also learn lessons from Australia’s experience by introducing more highly effective age assurance (HEAA) measures to support compliance, making it harder for children to bypass safeguards.
The government will additionally implement blocks on livestreaming and stranger communications for children for under 16. These restrictions will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites.
Restrictions on these functionalities will be on by default for under 16- and 17-year-olds to prevent a cliff-edge at 16. The government will also be looking at overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under 18-year-olds, and will set out more detail in July.
So-called AI ‘romantic companion’ chatbots – designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay with users – will also have to enforce a minimum user age of 18. Similar intimate functionalities will be restricted for under 18s on AI chatbots more widely too.
Wide support for the ban
Around eight in 10 people support either banning under 16s from social media or forcing social media companies to remove features and content deemed inappropriate for children, according to new polling for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) conducted by YouGov.
While 44% of the public prefer a ban and 39% prefer tighter regulation, parents of children under 16 included in the poll favour banning social media over regulation.
Only 11% of adults and 7% of parents with children under 16 say social media should not be banned or regulated in this way.
The IPPR supports the blanket ban on social media for under 16s, arguing that the debate must move beyond harmful content alone.
It says that the interaction between platform features and critical stages of child and adolescent development is ‘swallowing up childhood’ and that young people’s identities are increasingly shaped by likes, followers and Snapchat streaks while ‘every joke, insecurity and mistake can be documented, judged and shared’.
“Previous generations had the freedom to make mistakes, experiment and move on – today’s children are growing up under constant scrutiny, where every insecurity can be amplified and every mistake permanently recorded,” says Avnee Morjaria, associate director at IPPR and a former teacher.
“A blanket social media ban for under 16s is the only effective option – not because technology is inherently bad, but because we are allowing childhood itself to be shaped for the worse by algorithms. The greatest loss of the smartphone age is not privacy; it’s childhood itself.”
Daniel Kebede, general secretary at the National Education Union, described the decision as a ‘turning point in the fight to protect children online’.
“For too long, big tech companies have designed systems that hook children early, keep them online for as long as possible, and profit from their attention – even when it exposes them to harm. This decision is a necessary step towards stopping that exploitation,” says Kebede.
“The test now is whether ministers are willing to keep standing up to big tech and enforce this properly. If the government is serious about putting children first, they must make this real – not allow it to become a promise that the platforms can just ignore.”
Questions from the tech world
Despite this support, the tech sector has raised questions around scope, implementation and enforcement of the new ban.
Antony Walker, deputy CEO at techUK, says the tech sector shares the same priority as the government with creating an online world that is safe for children. However, he says it is ‘far from clear’ how implementing a blanket ban on young people using social media platforms is the best approach for doing so.
“Policy needs to be grounded in robust evidence, due process and a clear understanding of how it would be implemented, not just a rush to action. The risk of displacing the problem rather than solving it is real,” says Walker.
“Tech companies will continue to engage with [the] government in the policy’s development process. However, there is concern that by jumping to a ban, we may be missing the opportunity to drive a collective effort to build a more age-appropriate online world for young people that addresses safety concerns whilst also enhancing the positive benefits that many young people report.”
Matthew Holman, tech, privacy and AI partner at law practice Cripps, calls a ban on social media ‘a crude tool’ that has the right motive but will ‘likely lead to the wrong outcome’. He describes the government’s motivation as ‘commendable’ but says it remains to be seen how this ban can be applied in a manner that translates today’s rhetoric into reality.
“There are several obvious problems with a social media ban, which include a probable lack of enforcement. Law without enforcement is an illusion,” says Holman.
“In recent years, the UK has had to weather a continuous decrease in effective data protection enforcement. The ICO’s decline as an effective regulator of data protection has created an environment in which global corporations operating in the UK can expect to operate with very little risk of a fine.
“Ofcom, the UK’s regulator of the Online Safety Act, has only been able to progress with the most basic level of enforcement of a law which remains, despite being conceived before Covid, in its infancy.”
