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.

A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive digital products that contributed to harm suffered by a young user, marking the first case of its kind to reach trial and result in a verdict.

The jury awarded $6 million in damages to the plaintiff, with Meta ordered to pay 70% of the total and YouTube responsible for the remainder.The decision followed nearly nine days of deliberations after a six-week trial in Los Angeles superior court.

Jurors heard testimony from company executives, expert witnesses on addiction and social media, whistleblowers, and the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court filings as KGM.

The 12-member jury returned a 10-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff on all key questions, including whether the companies were negligent and whether their product designs were a substantial factor in causing harm.

Jurors also concluded that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about potential risks associated with prolonged use.

KGM testified that she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram, owned by Meta, at nine. She told the court that her use of these platforms became compulsive and had negative effects on her mental health.

According to her testimony, she experienced depression and engaged in self-harm by the age of 10.At 13, she was diagnosed by a therapist with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, conditions she attributed to her prolonged exposure to content and interactions on the platforms.

She also described strained relationships with family members and difficulties in school, which she linked to her social media usage.Her legal team argued that platform features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay functions were intentionally designed to maximize user engagement and create dependency.

During closing arguments, the plaintiff’s lawyer characterized these features as mechanisms that encourage prolonged use, likening them to engineered systems aimed at sustaining attention.

The plaintiff’s lawyers said the case reflected broader patterns affecting young users, arguing that similar harms have been reported by thousands of individuals and families. They stated that the verdict represented accountability for what they described as known risks associated with platform design.

Both Meta and YouTube said they would appeal the decision and rejected the jury’s findings. A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the verdict and maintained that teen mental health is influenced by multiple factors that cannot be attributed to a single platform.

The company said it remains confident in its efforts to protect younger users online.A spokesperson for YouTube also disputed the outcome, stating that the case mischaracterized the platform. The company described YouTube as a responsibly designed streaming service rather than a social media network and said the allegations presented in court were inaccurate.

Throughout the trial, both companies denied wrongdoing. They argued that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges were influenced by factors outside their platforms, including personal and environmental conditions. These arguments were rejected by the jury in its final determination.

The ruling comes amid increasing legal scrutiny of large technology companies over the impact of their products on younger users. The case is part of a broader set of consolidated lawsuits in California involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts.

The cases target multiple platforms, including Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, over alleged harms linked to social media use.TikTok and Snap reached settlements in the KGM case shortly before the trial began, leaving Meta and YouTube as the remaining defendants in this proceeding.

The verdict also follows a separate ruling issued one day earlier in New Mexico, where Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a case involving allegations that it misled users about platform safety and enabled harm, including child exploitation.

Together, the rulings represent the first instances in which juries have held Meta legally accountable for harms linked to its platforms.KGM’s case is the first among more than 20 planned “bellwether” trials, which are intended to test legal arguments and assess how juries respond to evidence in similar cases.

These trials are expected to influence settlement discussions and shape legal precedent in ongoing litigation against social media companies.

The next bellwether trial is scheduled for July, while a separate series of federal cases involving hundreds of plaintiffs is set to begin in San Francisco in June.