Why banning social media for under-16s is not the answer

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised new social media legislation for young people within months, not years, hinting at a possible ban for under-16s. Although the idea has supporters across the political spectrum and the media, a ban may cause more harm than good.

The Australian government banned the use of all major social media sites for under-16s in December 2025 after a study found that 96% of children aged 10-15 used social media, and that “seven out of 10 of them had been exposed to harmful content.”

More than 60 Labour MPs recently joined the Conservative Party in encouraging the ban

Since then, discussions have only intensified about the UK potentially implementing a similar ban.

More than 60 Labour MPs recently joined the Conservative Party in encouraging the ban, saying in an open letter to the PM that “successive governments” had not done enough “to protect young people from… unregulated, addictive social media platforms”.

Starmer told a community hub in Putney that a ban should be a possibility, but could only be confirmed after reviewing evidence from a three-month consultation. For now, Downing Street has announced amendments to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, which focuses on social media, and the crime and policing bill, which Starmer says will enforce a crackdown on tech firms to eliminate “vile illegal content created by AI”. These amendments are designed to enable any recommended changes resulting from the consultation to be quickly implemented. As the PM stated, the “status quo is not good enough; we need to protect our children.”

Conservative Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch seems certain that a complete ban is the way forward. “Social media is for adults,” she said, “it is not for children.” Badenoch has also rejected the idea that the ban for under-16s would indicate government overreach, saying it would be a “very Conservative policy”.

The ban has also garnered support from celebrities. Little Mix Star Leigh-Ann Pinnock told the BBC: “I think it should be banned. […] People are hiding behind a screen, so they can essentially say anything, and that is really damaging to young girls and people in general.”

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall says she knows “that parents across the country want us to act urgently to keep their children safe online.” However, The Telegraph reports that half of parents have said they would ignore the ban and allow their children to continue using social media sites, despite the government’s decision.

Such a ban could also leave many parents feeling controlled, with their parental authority undermined.

When asked what they think of the prospective ban, under-16s interviewed by the BBC say they understand the reasoning behind it but would be “devastated” to see restrictions put into action. Fifteen-year-old Hannah says she uses social media to have an “online identity” – something she finds “freeing” compared to the need to fit in at school. She said being introduced to social media at 16 would cause a “major disadvantage to developing social skills”.

This age-dependent restriction would be instantly disastrous. Telling teens who have had access to social media for years that it’s now off-limits until they turn sixteen would spark widespread teenage rebellion. Denying access would mythologize social media. Like alcohol or cigarettes, social media would become a kind of digital forbidden paraphernalia, snuck into classrooms or traded around after school. Not only this, but the ban would likely lead to worse issues for those born into the restriction when the world of social media is suddenly made available.

More social media use among teens aged 11-15 “predicts a decrease in life satisfaction a year later”

Even the most obedient teenager who never touches social media throughout their adolescence will suddenly, on their sixteenth birthday, be free to explore a digital landscape which is just as dangerous to them as it is to those who use it today. With a childhood’s worth of pent-up curiosity, these suddenly-empowered teens are bound to end up finding the worst parts of social media in no time.

Whilst a total ban for under-16s appears unworkable, maintaining the current situation is equally as problematic. A UK study from 2022 shows “distinct developmental windows during which adolescents are especially sensitive to social media’s impact.” The study observes that more social media use among teens aged 11-15 “predicts a decrease in life satisfaction a year later”.

If social media use by teenagers continues as it is, more under-16s will suffer from poor mental health. However, even an effective ban would be hard to enforce, and could have dangerous consequences.

The Molly Rose Foundation, a suicide prevention charity, has warned that a ban of this kind could push teens to unregulated areas of the internet. As seen in Australia, only major social media sites – Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, Facebook – can be feasibly targeted, prompting determined young people to turn to less regulated alternatives.

An article in The Economist argues the benefits of social media for teens, calling it “a blessing to children who feel isolated: perhaps because of their location, their sexuality, or because their brains work differently from those of others.”

Ultimately, the ban Starmer is considering would not solve the underlying issues. Banning TikTok and Instagram might simply push young people towards lesser moderated online spaces, or increase their time on video games and Netflix.

If the Labour government is serious about protecting kids online, it must focus on adapting social media into a safer space for young people.

One positive step could be simply disabling the ‘endless scroll’. By making social feeds finite each day, the ‘doomscroll’ effect would be prevented, and social media addiction could decrease. Small changes like this could bring significant benefits.

By locking social sites away until teens turn 16, we merely postpone the problems we aim to prevent. Parents should be involved and have a say about what their children can see online. Schools should be involved in promoting online networks as safe spaces for experimentation and community, spaces that extend into the classroom, rather than serving as a tempting escape from it.

Most importantly, teenagers must be heard. As the true ‘digital natives’, under-16s should be listened to regarding their experiences online. They know better than anyone how to navigate the social media landscape, so their views should be taken into account as social media is appropriately reformed for their safety.

The government is vying for a quick fix, but experts, teenagers, and parents all seem to know that under this ban, nothing will change.