UK Debate Over Social Media Ban for Under-16s Reveals Deep Divisions Among Campaigners, Experts and Industry
“Young people have the right to connect, but the challenge is creating online environments that are genuinely safe.”
The debate over whether children under 16 should be barred from social media platforms has exposed sharp differences among bereaved families, digital safety experts, technology companies and former industry insiders, with disagreement centered on whether outright restrictions or stronger safeguards offer the most effective protection.
Among those supporting tighter restrictions is Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna Ghey was murdered in 2023. Ghey has argued that excessive social media use contributed to her daughter’s mental health difficulties, including anxiety, body dysmorphia and social isolation.Ghey said she supports raising the minimum age for social media access, describing current platforms as posing significant risks to children under 16.
While advocating tougher limits, she also stressed that restrictions alone would not address the broader challenges facing young people online.As founder of the Brianna Ghey Legacy Project, which promotes online safety education, Ghey said digital literacy must play a central role in any policy response.
She argued that children should be equipped with the skills and emotional maturity needed to navigate online spaces responsibly when they eventually gain access to social media.Others working in online safety have taken a different view. Derek Gannon, who served on the advisory board for Australia’s age-assurance technology trial before the country introduced a social media ban for under-16s, said the United Kingdom should avoid replicating the Australian approach.
Drawing on more than two decades of experience in child protection and digital safety, Gannon said Britain had already made progress through the introduction of age-verification measures on smartphones. He argued that outright bans risk pushing young users into less regulated online spaces where parental controls and platform safeguards are absent.
According to Gannon, teenagers under 16 continue to access social media despite Australia’s restrictions, but many are now doing so outside established systems designed to provide oversight and protection. He said younger users have a legitimate desire to connect online and that policymakers should focus on building trusted environments with strong moderation and safety mechanisms rather than excluding them entirely.
Gannon also warned that bans may discourage open communication between parents and children. He said some young Australians continue to use social media platforms but are less willing to discuss their online activities because they fear admitting they are breaking the rules. In his view, the Australian model should not be regarded as a template for other governments considering similar legislation.
The technology industry has also expressed reservations about broad prohibitions. Doniya Soni-Clark, an associate director at TechUK, said there is widespread opposition within the group’s membership to a blanket social media ban for under-16s.TechUK represents a range of major technology companies, including google and spotify.
Soni-Clark said one of the main concerns is determining which services would fall within the scope of any ban. She argued that policymakers should focus on regulating harmful features rather than targeting platforms solely because they operate within the social media sector.Instead of age-based prohibitions, Soni-Clark called for universal safety standards applicable across all digital services used by children.
Under such an approach, features found to create risks for young users would be subject to regulation regardless of the platform on which they appear.The industry’s position is also reflected by meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. Meta has argued that age verification should occur when users set up smartphones or download applications, with platforms providing additional age-assurance measures once accounts are created.
The company maintains that social media services can deliver age-appropriate experiences when supported by effective verification systems and safety controls.However, critics of the industry remain skeptical. Arturo Béjar, a former senior engineer and consultant at Meta, said social media companies have failed to justify the public trust placed in them.
Béjar was involved in recent legal proceedings in the United States in which courts found Meta liable for designing addictive products and misleading consumers about platform safety.Béjar supports restrictions on access to platforms that fail to meet clear safety requirements.
Rather than a universal ban, he advocates establishing objective standards that define what constitutes a safe online environment for young people.Under his proposed approach, companies would be required to comply with those standards within a specified timeframe. Platforms that failed to do so would lose access to younger users until necessary safeguards were implemented.
The differing perspectives illustrate the complexity facing policymakers as governments seek to balance child protection, digital participation and industry accountability.
While there is broad agreement that online safety for children requires stronger safeguards, there remains significant disagreement over whether age-based bans or stricter platform standards offer the most effective path forward.
