I don’t understand why the UK government has decided to press ahead with a ban on social media for under-16s when the government’s own research briefing appears far more cautious.
In the House of Commons Library briefing, Proposals to ban social media for children (pages 17–19), the evidence presented does not appear to support a clear conclusion that an outright ban is the most effective solution. The briefing highlights significant uncertainty in the research, notes concerns about unintended consequences, and outlines arguments that bans may simply push young people towards less regulated online spaces rather than reducing harm. It also acknowledges that social media can provide important benefits, particularly for social connection and support networks.
Given that the government’s own briefing presents a nuanced and contested evidence base, it is difficult to understand why ministers have chosen to pursue such a sweeping restriction with apparent confidence. The decision seems to go considerably further than the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the evidence set out in the document itself.
To me, the government’s decision to move ahead with an outright ban seem driven more by political judgement than by the evidence contained in its own analysis.
Some of the questions that immediately come to mind are:
- How will the impact of this law be measured, and what criteria will be used to determine whether it is actually achieving its intended objectives?
- How does the government intend to enforce such a restriction in practice, particularly given the technical and practical challenges involved?
- When breaches inevitably occur, who will be held accountable? Will responsibility lie with the social media platforms, the parents, or the children themselves?
These are not minor implementation details; they are fundamental questions that need clear answers before any such policy can be considered credible or effective.
Anyway, below is the content from pages 17 – 19, I will let you judge yourself.
Research from the children’s charity NSPCC has revealed differing opinions between children and parents on accessing social media, owning a smartphone, and the impact of technology on mental health and wellbeing. On social media, children said that it was “essential” for building and nurturing relationships. They also said they would miss out on opportunities, including learning, if they were not given access.
A January 2026 joint statement from 42 child protection charities, online safety groups, academics and bereaved families warned that a social media ban for under-16s could have “serious unintended consequences that could put children at greater risk”. The statement claims that a ban, although well-intentioned, would not improve children’s safety and wellbeing. It would be a “blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner”.
Rather than banning social media, it said a “broader and more targeted” approach was needed.
The statement also says it is “vital that solutions are based on high-quality evidence”. The Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC and the 5 Rights Foundation are among the signatories.
Emily Setty, a professor of criminology at the University of Surrey, has argued that a social media ban “risks misunderstanding both the problem and the solution”. According to Setty, the harms experienced by young people online – for example, bullying, racism, sexism, coercion, exclusion and body image pressures – pre-date social media. While digital platforms can amplify these problems, they did not create them. A ban would treat social media as the problem, rather than asking deeper questions about why such behaviours occur in the first place.
Setty also claims that a blanket ban would treat young people as “a single homogeneous group, ignoring the diversity of their experiences, needs and circumstances”.
Sonia Livingstone, a professor in the Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics, is another academic arguing against a social media ban. She has said that “caution and more evidence” is needed before introducing a ban.
Download the briefing paper: Proposals to ban social media for children in the UK
First dropped: | Last modified: June 15, 2026