UK plans ban on under-16s using major social media amid debate over effectiveness

I recognize I have a tremendous amount of privilege to be able to spend time considering broad issues from a place of distance and safety. However, recently I found myself blocked from my local MLA’s Facebook page. It followed criticism for a dismissive tone about constituent feedback and the appropriateness of blocking constituents, particularly when politicians are consistently using social media to bypass traditional media and meaningful public engagement. It got me thinking about the various proposed social media bans for young people and how it may affect their ability to become informed and engaged citizens. A block from a local MLA is nothing to me, and in this case at least I got a response of sorts. But to perhaps too many people, social media is a key source of information and the only opportunity to engage. For its many flaws, social media has exposed me to viewpoints I had never considered before. This should not be stifled. I have learned so much and certainly want young people to stay connected and perhaps use these tools to organize and get involved. Obviously, there are also real harms to be considered. Anywhere we have the ability to block dissent or amplify particular messages, there is risk, especially in political spheres. And this must be balanced against the very real and often more direct harms these tools cause our children. Like many in my generation, I carry the guilt of how we embraced so much tech too fast and did not do enough to ensure appropriate safeguards. However, I cannot help but think that the sudden discourse on an issue we have not been dealing with at all may be more to do with limiting perspective and less with adequately addressing safety. Let’s take the time to consider broader implications of social media bans. We must protect young people and I look forward to seeing the actual contents of upcoming bills. But I hope that we recognize the risk of limiting exposure to complex issues and ensure that we are helping young people to find ways to learn, grow and get involved. Shara Vickers, Sydney Mines

We’re both addicted to our screens. But at least we’re watching together – it’s dystopian bonding for the modern ageTry as I might, I think there’s no saving my son from modern technology. It’s ubiquitous, seductive and deeply ingrained in every aspect of middle-class life. Worse yet, I’m also addicted. When do I not have my iPhone out, desperately scrolling through a suite of apps, hoping they’ll offer me some manner of comfort from the security of my living room couch? Hours go by as I’m practically begging someone to notice me on Instagram, while he’s skipping from brainrot videos to basketball tutorials on our internet-connected TV. Ten years ago, I might have witnessed a scene like that and thought it was a sign of the end times. We’ve lost our way so much as a culture that a parent and a child can be simultaneously subsumed by screens, barely noticing the other person. But at some point, everyone realizes that the battle is lost. This is just how it is.In spite of that grim diagnosis, Keir Starmer – who turned snatching defeat from the jaws of victory his personal brand – has made this losing battle a signature issue. This week, the British prime minister announced a comprehensive ban on social media for children under the age of 16. That includes Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X, Snapchat and YouTube (though not the kids’ version). The ban is modeled on one currently deployed in Australia, which has holes wide enough to drive a fleet of vintage Sherman tanks through. Teenagers in Australia are finding ways around their ban already, and of course they are. When I was 15, if I wanted a six-pack of Budweiser or some of those tiny airplane liquor bottles, I could figure it out.Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist Continue reading...

Dr Rory Conn says the ban is long overdue to protect children from harm, but 16-year-old Clara O‘Grady says social media is not an isolated section of teenagers’ lives that can easily be removed. Plus letters from Dr Peter Jarrett and Tony SideThis week marks a positive moment for public health and for the wellbeing of children and adolescents. Hearing Keir Starmer’s announcement proposing a ban on social media for under-16s, I felt an optimism I have not experienced for years regarding the mental health of young people in the UK (Social media firms hit back as Starmer announces ban for under-16s in UK, 15 June).As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, I have spent over a decade witnessing the impact of online exposure on those I meet in clinic. The harms extend far beyond the visible issues of self-harm, suicidality and eating disorders. They include pervasive bullying, the normalisation of misogyny and racism, and the quiet erosion of time, attention and self-worth through endless, valueless scrolling. Increasingly, children turn to artificial substitutes for connection – chatbots and curated feeds – in an online environment that often fosters hostility rather than support. Continue reading...

A ban alone will have limited impact and could make things worse. A good strategy needs more educational content – and more moneyAs a parent, I understand the appeal of the announcement on Monday by the prime minister that would prevent children under 16 from using social media. Right now, you are in constant battle with the infinite scroll for your child’s attention, while their impetus to explore the real world is subdued by endless entertainment always within reach. At best, their rapidly developing brains are rotted by a diet of the synthetic, sensationalist and shallow – humanity’s least impressive creative output catering to its lousiest instincts. At worst, they are being preyed upon by forces intent on manipulating, exploiting or recruiting them. You look around and wonder where they are, even as they are right under your nose. You worry they will never experience the boredom that leads to creativity and propels us forward.The desire to protect children from an often hostile environment makes sense, and the ban sends a signal of what we deem acceptable, and maybe even opens up the possibility of a behavioural shift in how we use social media. But evidence from Australia, where similar legislation was enacted last December, is not encouraging. According to one study, two-thirds of young people retained their accounts, while 51% of those most affected by the ban now see less news. The fact is that this demographic get most of its news from social media feeds, consumed incidentally amid footage of fights, diet tips and dance crazes and conveyed by influencers whose shtick is authenticity not accuracy. But it is encountered nonetheless. If we remove access, we need to create alternative routes to news and information. Continue reading...

'No ball games' sign on brick wallAfter the UK’s prime minister announced under-16s are to be banned from using social media, reactions came in thick and fast.But one that’s left many people bemused is that of a pupil from Preston’s Tarleton Academy, who revealed that her screen time over the weekend can reach up to nine hours.When a BBC presenter asked what she’ll do with her spare time (in lieu of the ban), school pupil Isabella responded, completely straight-faced: “Stare at a wall.”The clip was shared widely on social media, including on the Archbishop of Banterbury Instagram account with the caption: “What a diva.” At the time of writing, the clip had almost 2,000 comments and over 83,000 likes.“She’ll have to read the back of shampoo bottles like we had to,” said one commenter. “There is strong research that shows being bored makes better problem solvers and more creative thinkers,” added another. I doubt any teen will be spending nine hours staring at a wall once they’re booted off social media (in fact, I imagine many of them will be figuring out how to get around the ban – as has happened in Australia).While her response was clearly dripping in sarcasm, the comment about “staring at a wall” highlights something often missing from the whole social media ban debate: that teens have far fewer physical places to go than generations before them. If we scrap social media, what replaces it?My parents often tell me about their youth, when it was completely normal for them to play out in the streets and surrounding fields (which seemingly weren’t owned by anyone?!) and stay out for hours and hours.When I was growing up, we’d do the same – albeit a bit closer to home. Roads were far quieter for bike rides. There also seemed to be more clubs and activities to get involved with, whether at school, the local youth club or even places of worship (ie. church groups).But experts have been warning for some time of the disappearance of physical spaces for young people to go amidst a growing issue of ‘social thinning’.Between 2010 and 2023, more than 1,200 council run youth centres closed across England and Wales, and local authority spending on youth services in England plummeted by just over 70%.Research suggests that today’s children have significantly less freedom to roam, play outdoors, or gather with friends than previous generations.You’ve got the cinema (although that doesn’t come cheap), the park, the football fields. There are still some places teens can hang out, but it’s not as easy as it once was. “No ball games” signs still dominate neighbourhoods. Groups of teens are also, let’s face it, likely to be moved on or branded a “nuisance” for loitering on street corners. One in three young people say they do not feel part of their local community, and young people in Britain are more likely to report feelings of loneliness than any other age group, with 70% of 18- to 24-year-olds reporting they feel lonely at least some of the time.Banning social media for under-16s is coming from a place of wanting to help and protect children, but there have to be places for kids to go instead. Places where it’s not going to cost parents hundreds or thousands of pounds a year to keep them occupied (because god knows with the cost of living being the way it is, many of us simply can’t afford it).Fiona Yassin, a family psychotherapist and the founder and clinical director of The Wave Clinic, which offers specialist mental health support to teens, told me that adolescence is defined “by a drive for validation, belonging, connection and independence”.“Social media didn’t create those needs, it simply became the place where many of them now play out,” she explained. “So legislation can restrict access to platforms, but it cannot remove the developmental needs that underpin young people’s behaviour.”She noted this leaves us with some important questions. For starters, will removing access to social media genuinely reduce harm, or simply push it underground? But also, crucially, what are we putting in its place?The latter question is one that I think the government needs to think long and hard about – and come up with some answers, fast.Related...The Hidden Danger Of A Social Media Ban For LGBTQ+ TeensA False Sense Of Security: Why The Social Media Ban Fails To Protect Under-16sWhat You Need To Know About Keir Starmer's Under-16 Social Media Ban

The UK is poised to introduce a social media ban for under-16s which could come into effect as soon as next spring. Earlier this year, MPs voted against a social media ban for under-16s in the UK. However, prime minister Keir Starmer said on 15 June that a ban – which will see young people unable to access popular platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, X and TikTok – is the right call, following a consultation where 85% of parents said they think the dangers of social media use among young people outweigh the benefits.Some experts suggest a ban alone doesn’t go far enough. George Bevis, the co-founder of the online child safety app Safetymode.com, said parents have been “given the impression that the problem has now been solved”.Writing for HuffPost UK, he suggested a social media ban is “a bit like putting a lock on the front door while leaving the back door wide open”.“Children are not only spending their time on Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat. They are on WhatsApp. They are on gaming platforms. They are using AI tools,” he said. “They are communicating through dozens of apps and services that fall outside of the traditional definition of social media. Harmful content does not magically disappear because one category of app is restricted.”There are also fears a blanket ban may impact some children far more than others.LGBTQ+ children and young people may be further isolated by the moveExperts have expressed concern about how a social media ban could alienate young people who identify as LGBTQ+, especially as research has established that access to the internet and social media is “vital” for this group. Fiona Yassin, a family psychotherapist and the founder and clinical director of The Wave Clinic, which offers specialist mental health support to teens, told HuffPost UK: “For some vulnerable young people, particularly those who rely on online spaces for connection, identity and community, the mental health fallout from removing access could be profound.”While the therapist acknowledged the risks of social media for children and teenagers “have become increasingly clear”, she called the ban a “radical decision that largely places the burden of responsibility on children and teenagers, when many of the concerns that have led us here stem from the actions of social media companies, platform design, algorithms and advertising systems”.“Young people are being asked to pay the price for problems that the technology industry has had the power to address for years,” she added.Who’s asking teenagers what they want?Yassinsuggested when creating policies that “fundamentally reshape adolescence”, the voices of those most affected should be heard – “and it appears this may have been largely disregarded”.Youth-led non-profit FlippGen heard directly from young people aged nine to 21 years old, who suggested a ban will simply shift their behaviour elsewhere, make them less likely to report harm, and cut them off from the communities and information they rely on.A separate survey from The Mix found 71% of under-16s feel their voices are not being heard in this debate.“From a developmental perspective, adolescence is defined by a drive for validation, belonging, connection and independence,” said Yassin.“Social media didn’t create those needs, it simply became the place where many of them now play out. So legislation can restrict access to platforms, but it cannot remove the developmental needs that underpin young people’s behaviour.“This leaves us with some important questions: Will removing access to social media genuinely reduce harm, or simply push it underground and into less regulated spaces? Are there plans to equip parents with the skills and confidence to navigate an increasingly digital world? And crucially, what are we putting in its place?”The importance of online and physical spaces for LGBTQ+ teensFor LGBTQ+ teens, online spaces aren’t just for entertainment, they’re places to find community, explore identity, access information, and connect with people who understand their experiences.“For young people who may not feel safe, accepted or understood in their immediate offline environments, social media can be a lifeline,” said Yassin. “The danger is that a blanket ban may unintentionally increase feelings of isolation and loneliness among some of the young people who are already at greater risk of poor mental health.“Removing access to those communities without providing meaningful alternatives could leave vulnerable teenagers feeling more disconnected than ever.”Geoffrey Williams, co-founder of Rocking Ur Teens, a UK social enterprise supporting teens, is concerned because, for LGBTQ+ young people living outside major cities or those with unsupportive parents, “social media often serves as the primary gateway to discovering their community”.Williams suggested schools and wider society need to better understand “the complexities of growing up today” and added: “Young people require healthy, informed conversations about a range of topics, including the experience of being part of the LGBT+ community.”Like Yassin, he questioned what will be put in social media’s place once it’s taken away – because something needs to fill the gap. “Consequently, there is a clear role for human interaction and curated spaces tailored to this audience,” he claimed. For some time experts have warned of “social thinning” (the shrinking of social worlds) among young people – and have noticed that this trend has coincided with increasing poor mental health. Between 2010 and 2023, more than 1,200 council run youth centres closed across England and Wales, and local authority spending on youth services in England plummeted by just over 70%.There’s no denying a social media ban has its positivesOn the whole, this is an intervention the overwhelming majority of parents believe will help children – research from Opinium found seven in 10 (72% of) parents support such a ban. Laura Mackay, chief executive of Just Like Us, the LGBTQ+ young people’s charity, pointed out that while social media can be a useful tool to help young people find information and community, “it can also be a place where they frequently encounter hate, misinformation and cyberbullying”.LGBTQ+ young people are disproportionately affected by bullying. Research by the charity found a quarter of LGBTQ+ pupils have experienced cyberbullying, compared to 16% of non-LGBTQ+ pupils.While a ban might solve some issues, it’s clear more action is needed to protect future generations – especially as one survey found more than 60% of Australian children are still using social media despite a similar ban being in place.Yassin concluded there are “clear benefits” to strengthening protections for children online. “However, as with most issues affecting child and adolescent mental health, this [social media ban] is not a quick, one-policy fix,” she told us.“If we’re serious about safeguarding young people, what we need is legislation combined with education, parental support, digital literacy, stronger regulation of technology companies, and investment in community infrastructure.”To find LGBTQ-specific youth groups, check out The Proud Trust.Related...A False Sense Of Security: Why The Social Media Ban Fails To Protect Under-16sWhat You Need To Know About Keir Starmer's Under-16 Social Media BanStarmer 'Gambling With Young Lives' Over Social Media Ban, Says Dead Teenager's Dad