Sir Keir Starmer has described his planned ban on social media for under-16s as a chance to "give children back their childhood." The Prime Minister announced that children under 16 will be banned from using platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X and YouTube by spring next year, with tech companies facing enforcement action if they fail to comply.
Mixed Reactions from Experts
The move has been welcomed by child safety campaigners who argue that young people are routinely exposed to harmful content and bullying online. However, among scientists and researchers, the picture is far more complicated. While some experts believe stronger restrictions are overdue, others argue there is little evidence that a blanket ban will improve young people's wellbeing, warning it could distract from making social media safer.
The Government's decision comes amid mounting concerns about the impact of social media on young people's mental health, sleep, body image and exposure to harmful content.
Support for the Ban
Dr Naomi Lott, a lecturer in law at the University of Reading, said there are good reasons to be concerned about the amount of time children spend online. "We know that young people bond better 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," she said. "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."
Professor Miranda Pallan, Professor of Child and Adolescent Public Health at the University of Birmingham, said "there is mounting evidence for the harms of social media in young people but this also extends to vulnerable adults." She believes measures such as restricting livestreaming and communication with strangers could help tackle some of the most serious safeguarding risks faced by young users.
Is There Evidence a Ban Will Work?
The biggest question hanging over the policy is whether banning under-16s from social media will actually achieve its aims. Several experts argue that while concerns about online harms are legitimate, the scientific evidence supporting a blanket ban remains weak.
"This ban is based on worry, not evidence," said Professor David Ellis, Chair of Behavioural Science at the University of Bath. "The evidence base as it stands suggests social media has a minuscule effect, if any, on teenagers - particularly once you account for the other factors we know shape childhood development. Rather than tackling the difficult question (how to make the online world safer) you sledge hammer yourself into a worse position than when you started."
Professor Andy Miah, Chair of Science Communication and Future Media at the University of Salford, believes the proposal reflects years of uncertainty about how to manage children's online lives. "We've spent 20 years ignoring the risk; schools and parents haven't known what to do, and this is a policy born out of desperation arising from the failure to be bold in guiding young people towards healthier and empowering habits during their time at school," he said.
Prof Miah added: "What happens when a child turns 16? Are they just turned out into the Wild West of the internet and expected to protect themselves?"
Much of the debate centres on Australia, which introduced similar restrictions last year. The evidence from Australia so far remains limited, making it difficult to predict what might happen in the UK. "At this stage, I'd consider a similar ban in the UK as being as much experimental as it is based around evidence," Dr Thomas Lancaster, Principal Teaching Fellow in Computing at Imperial College London, said.
Dr Lott also added that the early signs from Australia have been mixed, claiming that some reports suggest "children are able to circumvent restrictions, or have not lost the access they originally had." "Due to the data that we have (or do not have), it is too early to say how effective this has been," she said.
Could Children Get Around the Ban?
The Government says it will rely on highly effective age assurance measures, which could include facial age estimation technology, photo ID checks and banking verification. Recent research by scientists at Italy's Politecnico di Milano examined age-verification systems already being used on adult-content websites and found that technologies such as selfie-based age estimation, ID verification, email-account age checks and credit-card verification can be effective at restricting access.
However, experts remain sceptical that any system will be foolproof. Professor Alan Woodward, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Surrey, said: "What is conspicuous by its absence is how we achieve this ban. An outright ban rather than policing the product safety risks mandating something that will fail, and thus not actually achieve the objective which has to be keep the children safe."
The evidence from Australia suggests that bans are not effective, so it must be better to address the problem with an approach that will work, and will protect children. Even supporters of the policy acknowledge that no-one yet knows whether it will improve young people's lives.
Dr Catherine Sebastian, Head of Evidence for Mental Health at Wellcome, described the ban as "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to gain a better understanding of youth mental health." "We do not know how this ban will impact teenagers' mental health. It is crucial that scientists closely observe what happens to inform future policy," she said. Wellcome also plans to fund nationwide studies tracking what happens after the restrictions are introduced, examining whether improvements are linked to factors such as better sleep or increased socialising in real-life.
