Social media ban for UK children: expert comment

A social media ban for under-16s has been announced by the UK government. It will be introduced in early 2027.

Dr Naomi Lott, University of Reading lecturer in law and children’s rights expert, provides comment on the implications of the proposal. For interviews, contact the University of Reading Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk.

Dr Naomi Lott said: “We know very little about the impact of a “social media ban” on young people, but we can make inferences from known benefits of other activities, and harms of excessive screen use and social media. For example, we know that young people bond better, are happier, and learn better social skills if they spend time with peers in person, and we know that play and sleep are critical for children’s physical and mental health. At the same time, we know that excessive screen use has negative impacts on physical and mental health, social media exposes people to harmful content that can have significant traumatic impacts, and that social media is deliberately designed to promote its use and limit the autonomy of the user. 

“The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have likened screentime and social media to smoking and the need for seatbelts in cars. This is not about a moral panic, this is about knowing what is good for us and our children, and what is harmful, and taking steps to promote our wellbeing and health.

"The data coming from Australia’s social media ban so far is mixed and slow. What we have seen are reports that children are either able to circumvent restrictions or have not lost the access they originally had. Due to the lack of data we have, it is too early to say how effective this policy has been.

"I have concerns a social media ban will create a loophole for tech companies. Whilst children are on these spaces, we can call on tech companies to better regulate social media content. Following a ban, if a child circumvents restrictions and then is exposed to harmful content, tech companies may be able to hide behind the fact that these are 16+ spaces – this will place the fault at the child or their parents for accessing such content, instead of the tech companies for not governing these spaces. 

“A social media ban may also damage trust between children and parents. If a child accesses social media or speaks to a stranger through a gaming site, and feels as though they should raise an issue with their parents, they may feel scared of the repercussions of admitting to being on these platforms. This could limit the availability of support needed. 

“The language we are using regarding this policy, referring to it as a “social media ban”, places the emphasis on children and their use of social media. But it is not the children at fault, it is the tech companies. We should instead be talking about banning tech companies from gathering and using children’s data whilst promoting harmful content and habits. 

“I prefer Canada’s proposal, which keeps the responsibility on tech companies to make social media spaces safe for children and temporarily stops social media companies from hosting children’s accounts if they do not have these safety measures in place, incentivising the design and implementation of safety measures.

“It is promising to see the government commit to support activities that are important to childhood alongside this discussion of social media. One question we have to ask is what will children do with their time if they are not on social media. We know that play is vital to children’s wellbeing and is crucial to a healthy childhood. A “social media ban” must be accompanied by measures that ensure children have space, time, acceptance and the full enjoyment of rights crucial for their play. Children’s play has been curtailed for the past few generations, and measures must be introduced to bring a cultural shift that re-normalises play, and particularly outdoor play. Children need more than just a “social media ban””.