A proposed ban on social media use for children under 16 in the United Kingdom has received strong support from parents, but young people who would be directly affected by the policy have expressed a range of views, from backing tighter controls to opposing a complete restriction.

A group of 10 children aged between 12 and 16 discussed the issue this week, reflecting differing opinions on how authorities should address concerns around online safety, addictive features and harmful content. Their views came as the government considered measures aimed at improving children’s online protection, including possible age limits for high-risk platforms and restrictions on certain features.

The debate has focused not only on whether younger users should be prevented from accessing major social media platforms but also on whether companies should be required to change how their services operate. Possible measures under consideration include limiting autoplay videos, reducing infinite scrolling features, introducing stronger parental controls and restricting personalised algorithms.

Precisa, a 13-year-old who uses TikTok and Instagram, said social media was important for her small roll-on deodorant business because she relies on the platforms for promotion. She also uses Snapchat mainly for messaging and communication.A complete ban, she said, would create difficulties for young people who use social media for constructive purposes, including entrepreneurship and community activities.

She argued that stronger monitoring of harmful content and limits on usage would be more effective than removing access entirely.Precisa, who is also deputy youth mayor of the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, said social media platforms help promote youth council activities and allow young people to engage with wider audiences.

Other teenagers expressed similar concerns about a blanket ban. Zoe, 14, said she mainly uses Snapchat and has limited access to other platforms because of restrictions set by her parents. She said she did not support a ban, arguing that parental controls could provide protection while allowing young people to develop digital skills.

However, Zoe raised concerns about personalised algorithms, saying she was uncomfortable with platforms delivering content specifically selected for individual users. The government consultation has examined possible restrictions on such systems because of concerns about their impact on young users.

YouTube emerged as a major part of the discussion among younger participants. Several 12-year-olds said they regularly use the platform to watch music, sports and educational content. While YouTube has an age limit of 13, younger children can access it through supervised accounts designed to provide age-appropriate viewing.

Some participants said they would miss the platform if access were restricted. Sophia, 12, said she uses YouTube for music and art videos and would lose access to content she enjoys. Milei, also 12, said a ban would be difficult to accept and called for a less extreme approach.Accurisa, 12, said she enjoyed watching football-related creators and supported restrictions on unsafe material rather than removing all access.

She added that if she had to wait until age 16 to use certain apps, she would likely join them later because more of her older friends would already be there.Kit, 12, took a different position and supported a stricter approach similar to Australia’s restrictions on some social media platforms for younger users. He said social media could become addictive and affect friendships and mental health.

His brother Xander, 14, disagreed with a full ban, saying social media can have educational benefits. He argued that parents should play a larger role in managing children’s online activity and warned that sudden restrictions could face resistance from young users.Some participants supported limiting access rather than banning platforms altogether.

Blair, 12, said children should be allowed to use many apps but that some services were too dangerous for younger users.The government has been examining whether restrictions should focus specifically on platforms considered harmful while allowing safer services to remain available under stricter rules. Another issue being considered is whether banning certain platforms could expose teenagers to unsafe content elsewhere when they eventually gain full access.

Lekso, 16, who uses Snapchat and Instagram, said time limits could be an effective starting point. He said social media was not only about entertainment but also communication with friends and communities.

Andrew, 13, also supported limits on usage. He suggested restricting access during school days because of academic responsibilities and allowing limited use during weekends. He said social media could easily become distracting and difficult to stop using.Parents have largely supported stronger restrictions.

A survey cited in the debate found that nine in 10 UK parents support banning social media access for children under 16. However, the teenagers consulted showed that young users are not united on the issue.

Nino Dvalidze, a parent involved in organising the discussion and founder of Young Minds App, said the focus should be on helping children use technology safely rather than creating fear around digital tools.The discussion reflects a wider challenge for policymakers: balancing protection from online risks with young people’s access to communication, learning and creativity.

While many teenagers acknowledge problems linked to social media, their responses suggest that approaches involving supervision, limits and platform changes may be viewed differently from a complete ban.As one participant noted, decisions about online rules will have a direct impact on young people, even though they are often made by adults.

As concerns over excessive smartphone use continue to grow, consumers are increasingly turning to a range of digital and physical tools designed to reduce screen time and limit access to distracting applications.

The market for digital wellbeing products has expanded in recent years as smartphone users seek practical ways to manage habits associated with social media platforms and other highly engaging mobile applications.

Many of these solutions are built around the idea that reducing phone usage requires more than awareness alone and often depends on creating barriers that interrupt habitual behaviour.

One of the simplest approaches relies on a low-tech solution: placing a rubber band around a smartphone. While rudimentary, proponents argue that the added friction can serve as a reminder to use the device more intentionally.

The method has gained attention among individuals seeking inexpensive ways to discourage reflexive phone checking without relying on additional technology.Other users have embraced software-based interventions.

A growing category of applications is designed specifically to help people reduce dependence on their devices by employing many of the same behavioural techniques used by social media platforms to encourage engagement.

These tools typically incorporate reminders, progress tracking, rewards and other forms of gamification intended to reinforce periods of reduced screen use.Among the products attracting attention are BePresent and ScreenZen.

BePresent offers a range of usage-control features through a subscription model, while ScreenZen operates on a donation-based system and allows users to access its core functionality without charge. Both applications are designed to help users create barriers between themselves and frequently used apps, while providing incentives to maintain healthier digital habits.

Developers of such tools argue that technology itself can be used to counteract problematic usage patterns. By rewarding periods of abstinence and making access to distracting applications less immediate, they aim to reshape behaviour over time.

A separate category of products seeks to move beyond software restrictions by introducing a physical element into the process. One example is Brick, a small plastic tile that acts as a gateway to selected smartphone applications.

The device attaches magnetically to metal surfaces such as refrigerators, doors or other household fixtures. Users can tap the tile to lock designated applications and tap it again to restore access. While the smartphone remains fully operational for most functions, selected apps become inaccessible until the user physically returns to the Brick device to unlock them.

Supporters of the approach argue that physical separation addresses one of the main weaknesses of software-only restrictions. Applications that are deleted can often be reinstalled within seconds, while digital blockers may be disabled with minimal effort.

Introducing a physical step creates an additional layer of inconvenience that can discourage impulsive behaviour.The concept is rooted in behavioural psychology, which suggests that even small increases in effort can significantly reduce the likelihood of habitual actions.

By requiring users to move to a different location before regaining access to distracting applications, products such as Brick attempt to exploit natural tendencies toward convenience and inertia.Advocates say the effectiveness of these tools lies not in making access impossible but in making it less immediate.

Users remain free to access social media platforms or other restricted applications whenever necessary, but the added effort creates a moment of reflection before the action is completed.

The growing popularity of both software and hardware solutions highlights broader concerns surrounding digital wellbeing.

As smartphones continue to play an increasingly central role in daily life, consumers are experimenting with a variety of strategies aimed at regaining control over their attention and reducing the impact of constant connectivity.