Under-16 social media bans: views from our Network

Ahead of the proposed UK Government consultation on a ban on social media access for under-16s and other measures, we bring together here a repository of links to recent statements on the issue from our Network partners and highlight their calls for alternative solutions.

For an overview of the policy and Parliamentary context for the debates, here’s the recent House of Commons Library briefing and check out our 10-point plan for strengthening the Online Safety Act for the urgent legislative measures we think the Government should be prioritising.

Barnardo's: Under-16 social media ban consultation: Barnardo’s response

View on a ban

"Making the internet safer for children must be the government’s priority – so we welcome this consultation into possible measures and the impact they will have. We also welcome the announcement that young people will be part of the consultation as it's vital their voices are heard on an issue that affects them so profoundly."

Alternative solution

"While this is happening, it is vital that the flood of harmful content cannot be allowed to continue unchecked – we need to see urgent action on this. The Online Safety Act places a clear legal obligation on social media companies to stop illegal content appearing on their platforms and to build services that are safe by default, rather than leaving children and parents to shoulder the risk."

5 Rights: Access limitations must be part of age-appropriate design, and effectively restrict companies from exploiting children

View on a ban

"Targeting only social media through a blanket ban could push children toward other unregulated but equally problematic services such as gaming, AI chatbots or even EdTech platforms. Companies apply the same harmful design choices – addictive features, data exploitation, algorithmic manipulation – and expose children to a wide range of risks across the entire digital ecosystem, from social media and gaming to EdTech to AI tools and beyond. Children may be blocked from social media yet remain exposed to identical exploitative and risky practices everywhere else, which is why effective policy requires tech-neutral restrictions on these practices and the companies that employ them."

Alternative solution

“Tiered age-appropriate access restrictions should protect all children, including teenagers, from features, content and spaces that are high-risk for their age. They should ensure that all children are protected, according to their evolving capacities, as they access the digital world in increased autonomy. Age assurance and differentiated access levels through tiered default settings should ensure features and functionalities become available to children only when they reach a certain age, protecting and empowering them in line with their developmental stage.”

Full Fact: Banning social media for under-16s could create more problems than it solves

View on a ban

“Children need the right skills and information to make informed choices, and that requires access to platforms used by adults to find information and form opinions. We know that a large percentage of young people get their news from social media. A ban of this kind could well inhibit the ability for those 16 and 17-year old voters to make these decisions when they have the opportunity to vote for the first time at the next General Election.”

Alternative solution

“Better regulation and an outright ban are not the same thing … It’s essential that the government’s upcoming consultation on children’s social media use assesses how UK regulation could be improved to tackle harmful misinformation, and to make sure critical thinking skills are embedded throughout the curriculum.”

Flippgen: Our position on a proposed under-16 social media ban

View on a ban

"Outright bans treat young people, rather than the platforms, as the risk. At FlippGen, our guiding principle is “know tech, not no tech”. Rather than outright bans, the focus should be on education and safety by design. Education is integral to ensure that young people are empowered to form healthy relationships with technology. Safety by design puts the onus on tech companies to make social media platforms safer for young people."

Alternative solution

“FlippGen believes the answer lies in safety by design, and education. The best way to mitigate the risks of social media, whilst enhancing the positive aspects, is to embed protections within platforms, and to educate young people on the digital world, empowering them to form healthy relationships with social media. To finish, an analogy. If children were being targeted in a playground in real life, we would not simply respond by banning the children from the playground. We would remove the perpetrators. If children were getting injured on the playground equipment, we would redesign the playground so it was safer, and teach children how to use the equipment in a safe manner. The same theories should be applied to social media, and that is why we are campaigning for (1) tech built and designed for young people, and (2) a broad digital literacy education for all.”

Glitch: Protecting the children? Our position on social media bans

View on a ban

"We caution against legislative proposals promoted and ushered in a context of Government and media moral panic over young people's social media use, and then framed as a panacea, particularly given the existing difficulties facing Ofcom, and other regulators worldwide with regard to regulating Big Tech. Even more concerning are bans approved in the absence of evidence and without input from children and young people themselves, especially without further understanding the potential consequences of social media bans and restrictions. We should be concerned about restricting children and young people’s use of “user-to-user” services, which include more than major social media apps, for information seeking, connection and support.”

Alternative solution

“Given the existing legislative frameworks, as platforms are failing to ensure there are adequate protections to mitigate children seeing harmful content, we would suggest that this calls for stronger scrutiny of the Online Safety Act’s implementation, looking at amendments where necessary, rather than additional legislation to introduce a ‘ban’.”

Internet Matters: Statement from CEO Rachel Huggins

View on a ban

“We are pleased that the Government has listened to civil society organisations and recognised that an outright ban on social media for children should not be enforced without careful consideration of its impact, which importantly must include speaking to parents and young people themselves”.

Alternative solution

"We welcome the Government’s commitment to taking an evidence-informed approach through consulting on measures that could genuinely improve children’s online lives. This includes considering the enforcement of minimum age requirements on platforms and restricting addictive design features such as infinite scroll - measures we have consistently called for as part of strengthening the Online Safety Act."

Prof Sonia Livingstone, LSE: The UK shouldn’t rush to a social media ban for children under-16s

View on a ban

“There is no evidence that bans work to make children’s lives better, which is why many researchers prefer evidence-based alternatives ... When loud voices mobilise behind a cause, it’s hard to tell which voices have been silenced. And when a debate gets so polarised, crucial arguments, evidence and proposals are pushed off the table. Although it is widely agreed that something must be done, there is no agreement on what that should be. And despite the sense that a ban is now inevitable, many important questions remain unresolved. So, despite this conversation not being new, a focused consultation to report by the summer is welcome.”

Alternative solution

“To act in the best interests of children. This is a fundamental principle of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It sets out a clear process for government, including listening to all arguments, weighing independent evidence, and listening to children. It is increasingly being used for and even by Big Tech. But it should not be left to them. I suggest that acting transparently and in the best interests of children should be an even higher rallying cry than the middle-class nostalgia of giving children their childhood back.”

Marie Collins Foundation: Response to social media ban consultation

View on a ban

"Children deserve digital environments that are safe by design, not environments that become safer only because children of a certain age are excluded. Our concern is that, without wider safety-by-design reforms and accessible routes to support, an under-16 ban is unlikely to reduce TACSA (technology-assisted child sexual abuse) and may create new risks.”

Alternative solution

“Risk-based age limits and feature restrictions, highly effective age assurance, and stronger duties on platforms to build child-centred products. We have also signed the Online Safety Act Network’s ten-point plan for strengthening the Online Safety Act to close gaps and accelerate safety-by-design implementation.”

Mental Health Foundation: Social media ban brings opportunities and risks

View on a ban

“there are challenges in implementation and risks of unintended consequences. We have concerns a ban could block vulnerable children from seeking help and accessing supportive online communities, or drive them to riskier online spaces. We must review the emerging evidence from Australia”

Alternative solution

“Social media is not a single entity and another option is considering individual age limits for sites that takes into account the risk associated with their content. In addition, the Online Safety Act contains many powers for keeping children safe online, and can be strengthened further.”

Molly Rose Foundation: Social media bans are the wrong approach for children

View on a ban

“Though well-intentioned, they risk doing more harm than good – causing harms to migrate to other high-risk platforms, introducing new mental health risks and leaving older teenagers at risk of a ‘cliff-edge’ when they turn sixteen.”

Alternative solution

“The Government should commit to fixing and strengthening the Online Safety Act, develop a bold new strategy that inoculates children with foundational skills in critical online and algorithmic literacy, and introduce new requirements that make building safe, high quality and wellbeing centred platforms a precondition to enter the UK market.”

NSPCC Chief Executive, Chris Sherwood: A social media ban would punish teens for the failures of tech platforms

View on a ban

“Everyone involved in this debate has the best interests of children at heart, but we know that barring children from mainstream social media platforms won’t stop them going online. It will simply push them to unregulated forums, anonymous apps and gaming platforms where risks are higher and support is scarce.”

Alternative solution

"To protect our children and young people we need to tackle the underlying problem head-on: that until now tech companies have built platforms that are unsafe by design. Algorithms push extreme and distressing content because it keeps users hooked. Features like infinite scroll and autoplay are engineered to keep teenagers online longer than they intend. These systems are not accidents; they are business models. That is why the Online Safety Act matters. We are already seeing companies make long‑overdue changes as Ofcom’s Children’s Safety Codes begin to bite. But we need government to go further."

Parentzone: Is a social media ban for under-16s the right move?

View on a ban

"To commit to a ban blindly without any evidence could mean more ineffective policy and wasted time. Professor Orben [from the University of Cambridge, who sits on the Advisory Committee of the Australian eSafety Commissioner Social Media Ban Evaluation] explained that it is incredibly hard to predict an outcome given the world-first nature of the Australian policy and the lack of scientific studies done in its preparation to gauge potential success. Coupled with a lack of high quality scientific studies on the effects of removing social media, to be so close to some concrete data and press forward regardless seems mistaken. Then – and in no particular order – there is a live risk that a ban on social media would result in challenges from tech companies on the basis of proportionality. They will make the case that asking them to spend millions on building safer experiences and complying with the existing law when the rules are in flux is unreasonable and not proportionate”

Alternative solution

“As an organisation that warned that the Online Safety Act wasn’t going to cut the mustard for parents, we remain deeply committed to making it work. It’s not the bill we wanted and it’s not perfect – but it’s what we have and the job now is to improve it and make sure it’s effective. If we don’t we’ll go back to a drawing board, that will ultimately fail parents, fail families, and leave children at risk for longer than necessary.”

SWGfL: Why a social media ban for under-16s is not the right answer

View on a ban

"Enforcing a social media ban at this stage is a significant step backwards. How can we give children the confidence to become upstanding digital citizens when we remove them from the conversation entirely? This is not a solution, it is a quick fix, and if passed, will highlight the Government’s dispassion to make the online world safer, fairer and appropriate for them to grow up in.’’

Alternative solution

"We need a fundamental reset in our expectations of technology companies. Safety cannot be an afterthought, and ethical responsibilities and accountability should not be forgotten. Platforms must move away from addictive, exploitative design and instead build child-centred products that promote agency, healthy interactions and exposure to high-quality content. … As well as this, we must reinforce our own responsibilities around how we connect with our own children when it comes to staying safe online. Parents must continue to play an active role, bolstered by having clear guidance, resources and support so their families can make good choices around online behaviours. The Online Safety Act was a significant step forward, but it must be strengthened.”

Joint statement from 44 children’s and online safety organisations, experts and bereaved families on a social media ban for under-16s

View on a ban

“Though well-intentioned, blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need. They are a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner”

Alternative solution

“Regulation should be strengthened and more effectively enforced, but also expanded so that tech firms not only tackle harm but are left in no doubt that the price of doing business in the UK is to comply with a strong and clear set of measures that prioritises the lives and wellbeing of our children and young people.”