UK to Ban Social Media for Under-16s
The UK Government has formerly announced its intention to ban under-16s from using social media. This is due to increasing public pressure that “something must be done” about the perceived iniquities of many online platforms. However, as with most complex social problems of this nature, no one has any clear or practical ideas as to what that “something” is. It remains a nebulous, non-specific panacea and clearly someone else’s job to identify and implement. As ever, why choose a nuanced and multifaceted solution to a complex problem, when it is far easier and politically expedient to just “ban” something. The former requires effort and a degree of thinking. If such an approach fails it also means that those who came up with it now carry the can. The latter dumps the problem in the lap of various third parties, who can then be conveniently blamed when the ill conceived policy fails.
The UK will follow Australia in banning teenagers under the age of 16 from accessing some of the world’s biggest social media platforms. These will include TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat. Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. However the proposed ban will not be tied to a specific set of sites and platforms, so as to remain flexible and able to accommodate any new platform that proves problematic at a later date. The messaging platform WhatsApp is not expected to be included in the ban. It would appear there is also a proposed usage of social media curfew for 16 and 17year-olds. Late-night “doom scrolling” is often cited by parents and teachers as detrimental to young people’s mental health. The Government will also introduce restrictions on access to chatbots and children will be blocked from having conversations with strangers on gaming platforms. Again, rather than naming specific services and games, the proposal seeks to be broad in nature, so it can adapt to future issues as they occur.
In the Government’s recent consultation on a proposed social media ban, nine in ten parents said they supported a minimum age of 16 before children can use such online services. 83% said that social media risks outweigh the benefits for children. However, concerns were raised as to whether such blanket proposals would inadvertently remove children’s access to platforms that provide useful and beneficial content. Those polled indicated that some sort of distinction between the potentially harmful and the benign needs to be made. However, the consultation gave no information as to how this would be achieved beyond it being the responsibility of owners of each online service. Today’s announcement has been met with mixed reactions with some groups welcoming the proposals and other seeing it as rash act of political desperation from an unpopular Government and Prime Minister who may shortly be facing a leadership challenge.
It is not yet clear when the ban will come into effect and how it will be implemented and policed. However, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act passed earlier this year gives ministers the ability to introduce new measures to restrict harmful features on online services without needing to pass new laws. This means there is potential for the ban to be introduced quickly. At present the target date is early 2027. As to the actual mechanics of the ban, it will no doubt be “enforced” in a similar fashion to the Online Safety Act that came into force in the UK in July 2025. IE It will be down platforms such as Instagram to verify the age of all UK account holders and block and restrict accordingly. Failure to do so will result in fines issued by regulatory body OFCOM. So far, with regard to enforcing legislation for age verification, OFCOM has issued only a handful of fines and has struggled to flex its regulatory muscles. Astute opinion conjectures that the enforcement of today’s proposed ban will similarly be difficult to police and enforce.
Addressing the problems that arise from social media is a complex task. If it is to be done properly it requires the involvement of numerous stakeholders. A solution would require a lot of human intervention on different levels. It would need administration, oversight and staff. Hence there would be a material cost. The Government would naturally balk at such an approach because it would require a budget and have to yield measurable results. The public/electorate would similarly eschew such a plan, as it would take time, require compromise and most importantly of all parental involvement and responsibility. Something that is in short supply these days. Many parents are happy to use technology as a catch all babysitter, yet whine when the babysitter is potentially problematic. Perish the thought that parents should actually police their own children. As for the tech companies who are going to have to deal with this problem, I suspect they’ll be far from happy and co-operative.
My five year-old Grandson likes to watch Milo and Chip on YouTube. This is a child friendly, Minecraft themed channel. At present, he watches this on the TV in his household lounge via a YouTube guest account. At some point in 2027, the YouTube app will cease allowing guest users and require an account login. Oscar will no doubt ask one of his two parents to address the matter and I think rather than tell him it is now illegal for him to watch via this platform, they will simply create an adult account and login, so he can continue viewing his favourite channel. More canny older children will do this for themselves. They’ll circumnavigate the age verification requirements as they’re doing already. It doesn’t take much imagination to predict a cottage industry of young people sharing information as to how to bypass this proposed ban. It’s not as if making something “off limits” ever made it more alluring, is it?
