Will Banning Social Media for U16s Fix What’s Broken?

In January, following the enactment of a social media ban for U16-year-olds in Australia, the UK government announced plans to follow suit. Over the next three months, hundreds of teenagers will take part in trials to assess whether overnight curfews, time-limits or a full social media ban would be a success.

Just six months after the introduction of the Online Safety Act, which is still being implemented in stages, this announcement has divided UK opinion, sparking heated debate.

All eyes are on Australia, where the 10 biggest social media platforms have been forced to bring in the ban or face a fine of up to AU$49.5m (£25m). Meta has reportedly blocked 330,000 and 173,000 users from Instagram and Facebook, respectively. Snapchat says it has disabled or locked 415,000 accounts.

However, concern surrounding age verification technology and compliance mechanisms has been raised, with some commentators suggesting these bans will only result in young people ending up in less visible and possibly more harmful online spaces.

Dr Brittany Ferdinads, from the University of Sydney, warned that "Preventing under-16s from having social media accounts won't necessarily stop them using them. In fact, it may push their activity underground”

This warning has been echoed in the UK. Ian Russel, who campaigns for better online protections for children since his daughter Molly took her own life aged 14 after online abuse, has urged the government to enforce existing laws surrounding online safety instead of “implementing sledgehammer techniques like bans”.

Social media provides an important space for many young people, especially marginalised youth such as LGBTQ+ individuals, to express themselves, connect with other people and learn new things. Everyone’s Invited, an online charity aiming to expose and eradicate rape culture, began on Instagram, providing a space for young people to share experiences and gain support from an empowering community. This serves as a prominent example of where social media serves as a lifeline for many individuals.

But with the rise of harmful online content, especially considering the rise of online misogyny, which leaves many young people feeling sad, lonely and powerless, support for such a ban is widespread. Luke Tryle, the director of More in Common UK, found in a recent survey that 75% of UK adults supported the proposed age limit. He says the issue of social media comes up unprompted when mothers are asked what the big issues of the country are, in line with the NHS and the cost of living.

Rachel, a secondary school teacher from Derbyshire, remarks upon the flagrant impact social media has on her pupils’ wellbeing and concentration. She told the Guardian, “I see the effect of social media and shrinking attention spans every day,” adding that she witnesses pupils struggling “to concentrate on anything for longer than a few minutes”.

Research has demonstrated that social media use has both positive and negative consequences on the health and well-being of adolescents with some studies finding that it leads to increased vulnerability to mental health problems and others finding there to be no correlation at all. This is precisely why, according to Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, digital literacy education is so important. He highlights how often such

education is inadequate, saying “it often fails to keep pace with young people and rapidly evolving technology.” Education is imperative and digital literacy must be part of the national curriculum. If young people are equipped with the necessary skills to recognise harm or abuse and seek help in these situations, they can take control of their social media use, rather than social media controlling them.

At the end of January 2026, 42 child protection charities, online safety groups, academics and bereaved families signed a joint statement warning that a social media ban for U16s could have “serious unintended consequences that could put children at greater risk”. According to the statement, a ban, despite its good intentions would only be a “blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner”. Instead, they urge the Government to introduce new legislation to support the Online Safety Act, hold tech companies to a higher standard and ultimately put the safety and well-being of young people first.

Bullying, misogyny, racism and body issue pressures are all issues that existed before social media. Whilst social media platforms exacerbate these problems, they did not create them. So rather than treating social media as the cause, perhaps the government needs to look further and ask why such harmful behaviour arises in the first place.

Sources:

UK social media ban for under-16s edges closer with Starmer expected to back it | Social media ban | The Guardian

‘This can’t be left to individual families’: how social media ban could affect under-16s | Social media | The Guardian

What is Australia's under-16 social media ban? The world-first law explained - The University of Sydney

Molly Russell's dad says under-16 social media ban would be wrong - BBC News

The Briefing Room - Should the Government ban social media for young people? - BBC Sounds

Hundreds of UK teenagers to pilot social media bans and restrictions | Social media ban | The Guardian

Proposals to ban social media for children - House of Commons Library

Joint-statement-from-childrens-and-online-safety-organisations-experts-and-bereaved-families-on-a-social-media-ban-for-under-16s.pdf

Is a social media ban for under 16s the solution?

Teens, screens and mental health