On Monday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to introduce a far-reaching ban on social media for children under 16, which is one of the more aggressive regulatory moves against big tech in recent years. The move comes as part of the government’s wider drive to reduce the harms of social media and bring “kids’ childhood back” – as Starmer put it – from the “addictive power of digital platforms.It marks a step up from the government’s continued crackdown on online harms and its desire to take back the “children’s childhood” from the “addictive power of digital platforms.”
The ban will impact popular social media platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and X, but not private messaging apps like WhatsApp or Signal. The difference is remarkable: the government seems to be more concerned about algorithm-driven, publicly-facing platforms where children are likely to have interaction with people they don’t know or to see something that is harmful or designed to be manipulative. The UK also intends to implement “world-leading blocks” of functions for users under 16, such as live streaming and chatting with strangers, in addition to the age ban. Surely there is a time in real life when you wouldn’t let your kid go out with a stranger, an adult you know nothing about?” No, so we’re taking action on that.”
The timing of the announcement is no coincidence. The UK government has been carrying out a huge consultation with teachers, parents, child psychologists and even with pupils themselves, and has received over 116,000 responses for months. When asked about the risks of social media versus benefits, more than 83% of parents who participated agreed that the risks were greater than the benefits, and 90% agreed they should set the minimum social media access age at 16. The figures provided Starmer with the mandate in the public arena he requires to press ahead despite potentially having a leadership challenge in the weeks ahead.
Britain is taking a straight path from Australia, which last December was the first nation to institute a social media ban for kids under 16. Since then, the list of countries that have indicated a desire for similar laws has grown due to the evidence that social media is linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression and sleep deprivation among adolescents. Starmer noted this world trend but emphasised that the UK wants to do more than just limit live streaming and meeting strangers and directly limit the latter. Australia has been criticised for its more vague restrictions on direct stranger interaction.
The UK government already has the legal instruments in place to take steps to enforce the first phase of the ban and formal rules should be completed by the end of this calendar year. As soon as next spring, if all goes according to plan, the prohibition will be in place. It’s a bold schedule, particularly in light of the hurdles of age verification technology and the backlash from tech titans such as Meta, Alphabet, and ByteDance, who’ve all opposed age-gating in the past, citing privacy concerns and enforcement impossibilities.
Britain has progressively stepped up its approach to tech companies over the past few years, shifting from advice to regulations in the Online Safety Act. Regulators have called for tighter regulations on age verification, algorithm transparency and, most recently, measures to limit the sharing of intimate images by children. However, Starmer’s decision to go for an outright ban for under-sixteens is a marked move from the more incremental, cautious path taken by previous leaders. It’s a reflection of many of the policymakers’ frustrations that self-regulation by platforms consistently fails to safeguard young users.
However, there are detractors to the ban. A number of developmental psychologists and technology researchers have pointed out that there is currently no conclusive proof that such an age-based ban would work as intended. Others fear that such a ban would push teen socializing further into the shadows and so into less monitored areas of the web or younger kids pretending to be older.Others fear that a hard prohibition would push teen socializing further into the shadows and so into less monitored areas of the web or younger kids pretending to be older. In a recent Reuters interview a group of London schoolchildren told the British news agency that they were dealing with a very mixed relationship with social media: while they knew they felt anxious and distracted when spending too long online, they also said they would miss out on friendships and support networks which exist largely in virtual environments.
Even among parents who agree to the ban, there is an understanding that its implementation will be no easy task. How can platforms ensure that they are able to confirm the age without obtaining more personal information? Are parents expected to monitor the compliance at home? So what about kids whose creative expression, sense of community, or learning is reliant upon social media? These are no rhetorical questions. The government’s own consultation found there was a wide range of views within young people about these things, with many supporting the introduction of greater safety measures, and improved digital literacy education, rather than a total ban.
The UK ban, on a more public health level, poses an interesting tension. On the other hand, there is widespread consensus that current social media platforms make overuse of social media, and pose major threats to children such as predation, disinformation and body image problems. However, a complete prohibition for those under the age of 18 may have the unintended effect of eliminating the very opportunities for teenagers to learn how to manage risk, conflict and build resilience with support. It also places virtually all the burden on platforms and the state, and leaves the question of what such healthy, age-appropriate digital engagement should be, largely unaddressed.
