Social media ban: civil society responses

We have compiled a selection of published responses and reactions from civil society organisations (within the OSA Network and beyond) to the Government's announcement of a social media ban for under-16s and other measures, following their consultation on children's online safety - "Growing up in the Online World". For a selection of the evidence submitted to the consultation by many of these organisations, please see our compilation page here.

Our initial response can be found here.

• 5 Rights Foundation - "age restrictions alone cannot solve the underlying problem".
• Ada Lovelace Institute - "a social media ban for young people – even if successful – only addresses part of the problem".
• Amnesty - "banning under-16s risks treating children as the problem rather than addressing the companies and systems that create the risks in the first place".
• Anti-Bullying Alliance - "we have serious concerns about whether a blanket social media ban for under 16s will effectively address these harms".
• Barnardos - "this is not a silver bullet, and must be seen as one of a package of measures".
• Beat - "a ban must not become a substitute for removing harmful content".
• Center for Countering Digital Hate - “Bans are no silver bullet and without strong enforcement, these protections risk becoming empty promises."
• Breck Foundation - "this approach risks narrowing a complex conversation. We remain concerned about unintended consequences."
• Centre for Countering Online Disinformation - "a blanket ban on social media use will fail to yield well-intended results"
• Centre for Protecting Women Online - "the concerns raised about a blanket ban are very real, and are affecting young people, as well as women, particularly those most marginalised".
• Childnet - "whilst we acknowledge the need for change, we do not think that a ‘blanket ban’ approach, as outlined by the Government, is the answer needed."
• Child Rights International Network - "children should have safe social media, not exclusion".
• Child Online Harms Policy Think Tank - "we support online child protection but believe that blanket restrictions may create unintended consequences".
• Children's Commissioner for England - "a positive response to what children have been telling me. However, these measures will only be as strong as their enforcement".
• Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland - "enforcing a ban on children takes away the responsibility on platforms to make social media safer."
• The Children's Society - "by fixating on a ban as a desirable outcome, rather than a more practical approach, the debate has ignored realities for young people, including learning from other countries"
• Flippgen - "a ban will increase the gap between young people’s realities of growing up online, and parents and regulatory decision makers."
• Girlguiding - "It is vital that this moment drives further action to address the root causes of online harms."
• Marie Collins Foundation - "while restricting access may reduce some harms, it does not address the core of the problem"
• Mental Health Foundation - "we must be clear that an under-16 ban alone is not a fix: it cannot be the only action taken"
• NSPCC - "the government must continue to put pressure on Big Tech and not let them off the hook".
• Parentzone - "what is already self-evident is that bans will not replace parenting and education".
• Plan International UK - "banning children does nothing to tackle the dangerous misogyny and sexism that has become so rampant across social media."
• Save the Children - "if ministers want to make the online world safer, the answer is not simply keeping children off platforms."
• UK Youth - "protecting young people online means investing in them offline".
• White Ribbon - "plans to restrict children’s access to social media may form part of the response, but they should not be seen as the only way to tackle online harm".