UK launches consultation asking for views on under-16s social media ban

The government has opened a public consultation on banning social media for children under 16, a policy that splits bereaved parents demanding immediate action from children's charities warning such restrictions could simply scatter young users across darker, less regulated corners of the internet. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced the move will ask families, young people and industry for input on whether to follow Australia's December 2024 ban or pursue softer interventions like disabling infinite scrolling and imposing overnight platform curfews. What's striking is how the consultation itself reveals Westminster's fundamental uncertainty about whether the greater danger lies in Big Tech's addictive algorithms or in pushing millions of children towards unmonitored platforms where no safety measures exist at all.

Copying Australia's homework before the results are in

Australia's under-16 ban passed just four months ago. Implementation details remain murky, and there is virtually no empirical evidence yet on whether the policy works or merely accelerates migration to encrypted messaging apps, gaming platforms and overseas-hosted sites beyond regulatory reach. Yet the UK government has commissioned an academic panel to assess 'Australia's recent experience' as part of a consultation closing on 26 May, with a decision promised by summer.

The timeline alone should raise eyebrows. Meaningful longitudinal research on child development and platform usage takes years, not weeks.

The pilots announced alongside the consultation may provide some data, but expecting 'real-world evidence' capable of informing a policy affecting millions of British children within a matter of months stretches credulity. According to figures from Ofcom's 2023 research, 79 per cent of UK children aged 12-15 use social media, rising to 91 per cent by age 16. Any ban or restriction mechanism would need to verify ages across this entire cohort whilst avoiding the creation of honeypots of verified child identity data that privacy advocates rightly fear.

When bereaved parents clash with children's charities

The political momentum behind a ban comes from understandable sources. The House of Lords has already voted for it. More than 60 Labour MPs have joined Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in backing the policy, whilst opposition leader Kemi Badenoch has stated her party would implement a ban if in government.

Bereaved families provide the most powerful testimonies. Ruth Moss, whose daughter Sophie died by suicide in 2014, told the BBC that 'all the academic research shows that social media is damaging for young minds'. Ellen Roome, campaigning after the death of her 14-year-old son Jools, questioned why the government needed another three months of consultation when 'all the evidence is there'.

But the evidence is neither unanimous nor unambiguous. Whilst multiple studies link heavy social media use to increased anxiety and depression rates amongst adolescents, the causation runs in multiple directions. Professor Sonia Livingstone from the London School of Economics points out that what families want is 'better safety from Big Tech companies' so children can 'express themselves and connect online as they want to'.

Perhaps most tellingly, the NSPCC opposes an outright ban. When Britain's leading child protection charity argues against a child safety measure, policymakers should pause.

In a joint statement with other children's organisations in February, they warned it would 'create a false sense of safety that would see children migrate to other areas online' along with the threats facing them. Even Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly's 2017 death at age 14 after viewing self-harm content on Instagram became a watershed moment in UK digital safety policy, has told the BBC the government should enforce existing laws rather than 'implementing sledgehammer techniques like bans'.

Big Tech's decade of broken promises

The counter-argument is simple: we have tried industry self-regulation and it failed catastrophically. Instagram, TikTok and YouTube have spent years promising algorithm changes, content moderation improvements and safety features whilst their platforms became more addictive and recommendation engines grew more sophisticated at keeping young eyes on screens.

The EU is already fining TikTok over addictive design features. California courts are examining Instagram's mental health impacts in landmark litigation. The UK's own Online Safety Act contains child protection provisions that Ofcom can theoretically enforce, yet platforms continue deploying infinite scroll, autoplay and notification systems designed to maximise engagement regardless of developmental impact.

The consultation asks whether platforms should be forced to disable these features for young users, whether overnight curfews should be mandatory, and whether children should access AI chatbots without restriction. These are the alternatives to an outright ban, though critics would note they still require robust age verification and platform compliance.

The government is essentially asking the public to choose between regulatory approaches that have all failed elsewhere: outright bans that prove unenforceable, feature restrictions that companies circumvent, or strengthened enforcement of existing rules that regulators lack resources to implement. Australia opted for the ban. Spain announced in February it would follow. The UK remains stuck between evidence suggesting none of these approaches work particularly well and political pressure demanding action now.

The consultation closes 26 May, with a government response expected by summer. Whatever decision emerges will either force tech giants to redesign their youngest user experiences or drive millions of British children onto platforms and services beyond regulatory oversight. Both outcomes carry substantial risks, which perhaps explains why Westminster is still asking the public which gamble to take.