A New Approach to Social Media Regulation in the UK
Britain is on the brink of a major decision regarding children’s access to social media. The prime minister has announced plans to implement a ban on social media for individuals under 16 by next spring. While the exact timeline and feasibility of this plan remain uncertain, it marks a significant shift in policy.
As part of broader reforms, Keir Starmer has indicated that children will be restricted from accessing several platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. However, Bluesky will not be included in this restriction. Additionally, the proposals aim to take “world-leading action” on gaming services and live-streaming platforms.
This move does not seem to stem from years of thorough, evidence-based policy development. Instead, it appears to be a response to political pressures. The government has found that “tough on tech” policies are one of the few levers they can use to gain public support, especially ahead of the Makerfield by-election.
Learning from Australia’s Model
The proposed legislation is often referred to as “Australia-plus,” drawing lessons from the first country to block children under 16 from social media platforms. This new approach goes even further by also banning under-18s from accessing “romantic chatbots,” AI companions that act as virtual partners.
Tech companies have long created environments that are addictive and unsafe for children, only to express surprise when these environments cause harm. While ministers are correct in stating that the current situation is unacceptable, the way to address it is not through a moral panic driven by political expediency.
The father of Molly Russell, a teenager who took her own life after being exposed to harmful content on social media platforms, agrees that this is not the right way to proceed. Despite this, Starmer attempted to justify the policy during a press conference by referencing a public consultation that received over 116,000 responses. However, the government has only published headline percentages from two questions, which were self-selecting and not representative of parents across the country.
The Limitations of Banning
While something needs to be done, a policy based solely on bans is not effective. Consider the Australian example: since implementing a nationwide social media ban, more than 60% of Australian 12- to 15-year-olds still have access to at least one platform. Around 70% of those using restricted sites said it was easy to bypass the rules.
A government that struggles to enforce basic digital rules for adults cannot realistically expect to stop 14-year-olds from using VPNs, borrowed IDs, burner accounts, older siblings, or group chats with instructions. The same applies to the “plus” part of the proposal, which includes tackling livestreaming and gaming platforms, though specific details remain unclear. Introducing curfews on usage for older teens is similar to measures already tried by platforms, which led to a 15% increase in app use before being scrapped.
Banning platforms like Instagram or Snapchat may seem reasonable, but banning YouTube for under-16s could create challenges for GCSE students who rely on the world’s second-largest search engine for revision. Even if pernicious platforms are banned, young people will simply move to other spaces such as Discord servers, private groups, gaming chats, clone apps, and sideloaded platforms that are harder for parents, schools, and regulators to monitor.
For many teenagers, the internet is where friendships are formed. It is where isolated children find others like them, where vulnerable children find support, and where young people build their identities away from the pressures of school corridors and family politics.
A Call for Real Change
A serious government would require platforms to change their products, focusing on algorithmic amplification, recommender systems, default messaging settings, age-inappropriate design, data extraction, and addictive nudges. It would consider all the evidence, not just selective data, and take meaningful action.
However, this appears to be a government grasping for a legacy rather than addressing the real issues. In its final days, it risks harming future generations with misguided policies.