Nine in 10 UK parents support an under-16 social media ban, but the children it would affect have mixed feelings, according to a group of 12- to 16-year-olds who spoke to the Guardian in west London. Their views ranged from mandatory time limits to tougher controls and a full ban, as the government prepares to announce the outcome of a consultation on children’s online safety next week. An under-16 age limit is expected for “high-risk” platforms, along with restrictions on features such as livestreaming.
Precisa, 13, who runs a deodorant business using TikTok and Instagram for marketing, opposes a blanket ban. “It will definitely be much, much harder to run the business without those apps,” she said. Instead, she favours tougher monitoring of harmful content and screen time limits. Zoe, 14, who is only allowed Snapchat and WhatsApp by her parents, does not support a ban either, saying parental controls are sufficient, but she dislikes personalised algorithms, calling them “an invasion of privacy”.
Four 12-year-olds in the group all watch YouTube, despite its 13+ age limit, using parent-supervised accounts. Sophia, 12, said she would “miss a lot of things” if YouTube were blocked for under-16s, as it is in Australia. Milei, 12, preferred the government not to be “too drastic”. Accurisa, also 12, supported banning “unsafe” material but said she would “definitely” sign up for apps like TikTok at 16 to connect with older friends.
However, Kit, 12, who watches tennis highlights on YouTube, backed a full Australia-style ban. “I think it’s addictive and it can damage friendship and mental health,” he said. His brother Xander, 14, who does not have a smartphone, opposed a ban due to “educational purposes” but said parents should manage use more. He warned that a “sudden” crackdown would likely be rejected by peers and circumvented, as in Australia.
