The government said in June that it will bring in a social media ban for children. Modelled on a similar ban already in place in Australia, the necessary legislation is due to be put to Parliament in the autumn, and to take effect early next year. The restrictions will broadly define social media as sites that promote social interaction between users, allow them to post material or links to external sites, and use recommendation algorithms or “persuasive design”, such as infinite scrolling. The onus will be on the technology platforms to enforce the ban by introducing age checks on users; they will face fines if they don't.
The social media ban will mean YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Kick, Reddit, Threads, Twitch, X, and Bluesky will be off limits to under-16s. Some dating apps and live-streaming sites could also be covered. However, other platforms popular with young teens – including Discord, Roblox, Pinterest, YouTube Kids and WhatsApp – will not be banned. Educational services, e-commerce, libraries, museums and music streaming platforms are also expected to be exempt.
However, the UK is going further than Australia by also specifically banning all platforms – including Discord and Roblox, for example – from offering live-streaming for under-16s, and from allowing strangers to contact child users. Chatbots offering romantic companionship will also be banned for under-18s.
Start your trial of MoneyWeek today
Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.
Start your trial
Sign up for MoneyWeek’s free twice-daily newsletter.
Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Supporters argue that the evidence of harms caused by social media is now overwhelming. Numerous studies have found that teenagers who spend large amounts of time on it report higher rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness and poor self-esteem. Teens are especially vulnerable to the features designed to make platforms addictive (auto-play, infinite scroll, and so on), and recommendation algorithms tend to reinforce access to undesirable or toxic content. Social media is a breeding ground for cyberbullying, while late-night scrolling leads to poor sleep and exhaustion.
A ban is needed because the current system is not working. A survey by Ofcom found that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a national minimum age of 13. Also, even if no ban will be perfect, that's not a reason for not having one. Bans on sales of cigarettes and alcohol to teenagers are also not 100% effective, but few would dispute their usefulness. A ban is also enormously popular, with polls showing large majorities in favour.
The tech firms naturally oppose any bans as an unjustified interference in their businesses. But it's not just Big Tech that's worried. Smaller UK enterprises that make apps aimed at teens are waiting anxiously to discover whether their in-app features will see them classed as social media.
There have always been moral panics about how children waste their time, says Christopher Snowdon in The Spectator. But what the government has planned is “more like banning the printing press than banning Grand Theft Auto”. It won't work, and no one really expects it to – so why bother?
Moreover, the science, in terms of the harms caused by social media, is far from settled, says the FT, with much research showing only weak associations between teenage usage and mental ill-health. And, strikingly, not all campaigners on this issue support an outright ban.
There are fears that bans will encourage children to move to riskier platforms and instil a counterproductive false sense of security in parents. Such campaigners say the government should force the companies to make their products safer, for example by banning addictive features such as infinite scroll.
No. The Australian government's eSafety Commission found last week that 81% of children aged ten-15 had accessed at least one of the banned platforms following the ban. Slightly more encouragingly, the proportion of that age group who actually held their own social-media account fell from 52% to 42%. The research is hardly definitive, based on surveys involving just 800 children and parents. But it's broadly in line with other surveys.
The biggest issue was “ineffective implementation of age-assurance measures by platforms”, the research found. More than half of children said they had not been asked to confirm their ages. Some 18% said platforms had incorrectly estimated their age to be above 18, and 37% said they had simply claimed to be 16 or above to maintain access.
The federal government in Canberra recently doubled the maximum penalty for companies that fail to comply with the ban to A$99 million (£52 million), arguing that tech giants were “not doing enough” to comply with the new rules. But even so, the early signs are that the road to compliance – even if possible – will be long and winding. “The impact of the law will not be measured in weeks or months, but over generations,” said Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety commissioner.
Some campaigners favour more nuanced policy interventions. Rather than banning access altogether, governments could regulate the design of platforms – for example by prohibiting addictive features such as infinite scrolling or autoplay for younger users, limiting algorithmic recommendations, making accounts private by default and preventing children from being contacted by strangers.
All these interventions would still rely on effective age verification. But rather than raise age limits, regulators “should redouble efforts to make social sites more suitable for teens”, said The Economist. This would be preferable to an unproven and almost certainly unworkable outright ban. Governments should also “force web firms to cough up more data on how teenagers use their products–the better to help researchers measure harms, and come up with ways to prevent them”.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
