Consultation on social media ban for under-16s to begin

Britain enters a fraught regulatory debate on Monday as the government launches a public consultation on banning social media for under-16s, following Australia's December prohibition. Yet the cross-party political enthusiasm for decisive action sits uncomfortably against warnings from child safety experts, including the NSPCC, that such measures risk dangerous unintended consequences. The country now faces a choice between the political appeal of an outright ban and evidence suggesting that forcing platforms to become safer may prove more effective.

Political consensus meets expert scepticism

The momentum behind an age ban is striking. The House of Lords has already voted in favour of prohibiting social media access for under-16s. More than 60 Labour MPs have backed the policy, joined by the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats.

Kemi Badenoch has said her party would introduce such a ban if it were in power, whilst Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman Munira Wilson has warned against 'kicking the can down the road yet again'. This level of cross-party agreement is rare in British politics.

Yet several children's charities and campaign groups, including the NSPCC, have explicitly warned against an outright ban. In a joint statement issued in February, these organisations argued that such measures 'would create a false sense of safety that would see children—but also the threats to them—migrate to other areas online'.

The split reveals an uncomfortable truth: political appetite for action has outpaced expert consensus on what effective intervention actually looks like.

The contrast becomes sharper when examining Australia's experience. That country became the first to introduce a social media ban for under-16s in December, covering platforms including Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube and TikTok. Spain announced in February that it intends to follow suit.

But Australia's ban has been in force for barely four months—far too short a period to assess whether it works, whether enforcement is viable, or whether children have simply moved to less visible platforms. The UK government plans to include Australian data in an academic panel's assessment, yet what meaningful evidence can possibly exist at this stage?

Softer alternatives reveal underlying doubts

The consultation document itself suggests the government recognises the limitations of an outright ban. Alongside the headline question of age restrictions, officials are seeking views on less dramatic interventions: requiring platforms to disable infinite scrolling and autoplay features, implementing mandatory overnight curfews to protect sleep, restricting children's access to AI chatbots, and strengthening age verification enforcement.

These softer measures indicate a government hedging its bets. If ministers were genuinely confident that an Australian-style ban represented the optimal policy, why consult on design changes and curfews? The inclusion of these alternatives suggests awareness that an outright prohibition may prove unworkable, unenforceable, or counterproductive.

Sonia Livingstone, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics, told the BBC: 'What everyone wants to see is better safety from Big Tech companies, and then children could express themselves and connect online as they want to'. Her framing highlights the core tension: should policy focus on banning access or forcing platforms to become safer?

The European Union has chosen the latter approach. In February, Brussels told TikTok it must change its 'addictive design' or face heavy fines—a move the Chinese-owned platform said it would challenge.

Meanwhile, a landmark trial is currently under way in California examining the mental health effects of Instagram and YouTube. These parallel developments suggest that enforcement of design standards, rather than blanket age bans, represents the emerging international regulatory consensus.

The evidence gap

The government has promised 'real-world evidence' from pilots testing proposed interventions. But the consultation closes in ten weeks, with a response promised 'in the summer'. This timeline raises obvious questions about the quality of evidence that can be gathered, analysed and properly assessed in such a compressed period.

The Molly Rose Foundation, established by the family of 14-year-old Molly Russell who took her own life in 2017 after viewing self-harm and suicide content on Instagram, has welcomed the consultation as a 'crucial opportunity to decisively strengthen online safety laws'. Yet even organisations supporting stronger regulation acknowledge that rushed implementation risks creating more problems than it solves.

What happens next will determine whether Britain leads a global movement towards age-restricted social media or becomes a cautionary tale in ineffective regulation. The consultation invites submissions from young people, parents, carers, academics, civil society organisations and industry—though different versions have been created for different audiences, suggesting concerns about accessibility and engagement.

Community events involving MPs, influencers and schools are planned throughout the consultation period. The summer response will arrive at a moment when Britain's regulatory approach to digital platforms remains uncertain.

With Australia's ban too recent to evaluate, the EU pursuing design enforcement, and American courts examining mental health impacts, the UK faces a choice between populist prohibition and evidence-based regulation. The consultation may be framed as gathering public views, but it will ultimately reveal whether this government prioritises policies that sound decisive over those that actually work. Medical professionals have warned of a "public health" dimension to the debate, adding further complexity to an already contentious policy question.