On the 15th June 2026, the UK government announced a social media ban for under-16s, following on from similar bans in Australia, Austria, Brazil, and other countries. The announced ban is planned to be implemented by Spring 2027, and incudes stronger requirements for age verification, and a full ban of platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X (Twitter) for under 16s
On the 15th June 2026, the UK government announced a social media ban for under-16s, following on from similar bans in Australia, Austria, Brazil, and other countries. The announced ban is planned to be implemented by Spring 2027, and incudes stronger requirements for age verification, and a full ban of platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X (Twitter) for under 16s. The government also plans to introduce curfews for 16- and 17-year-olds. These bans are to be enforced through several age verification methods, such as “open banking, photo ID matching, facial age estimation, mobile network operator age checks, credit card checks, digital identity services and email-based age estimation”. Age verification will be required for all social media users, including over 16s. This has led to concerns about privacy and free speech. The ban is a response to an increase of concerns about child safety online – with high profile cases such as Molly Russel’s suicide and the murder of Brianna Ghey influencing government action. Concerns about what type of content young people can view online are not unfounded, and inappropriate content, criminal and sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, and radicalisation are large problems in digital spaces. It’s clear that the government hopes to reduce device usage amongst young people, as this move comes in tandem with new guidance issued to schools encouraging the prohibiting of mobile phones for students. Many schools are now choosing to lock pupils' phones in Yondr pouches during the day, or collecting them by other means.
The introduction of such restrictions have led to widespread discussion, and with the younger generations having been raised by smartphones, many feel defensive of their right to access the internet. However, others feel that they would have liked more restrictions when they were younger, stating that they were harmed by social media and the content they had access to. These bans also raise concerns about the government controlling access to information, and users feel that age-checking may act as a replacement for the unpopular digital-ID proposal.
Is a ban the way to go, or should social media companies be held responsible for the accessibility and safety of their products?
In order to answer this question, I sent out a poll, reaching 128 participants. The respondents fell into the age groups of under 16, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, and over 24. They were a mixture of social media users (95%) and non-users. 117 respondents were from the UK. Respondents were asked a range of questions about their relationship with social media, their screentime, and their opinions on social media and the ban.
Overall, participants generally held a critical view on the ban, with 45% disagreeing and 26% having a neutral view. Interestingly, those who identified as non-social media users were less likely to view the ban favourably, with only 14% indicating that they agreed with it. Not all those who agreed with the ban believed it would be effective, with 80% of the total participants answering ‘No’ when asked. Those who ‘Completely Agree’ with the proposal were more likely to believe it would, in fact, be effective. There did not seem to be a connection between screen time and people’s level of agreement. Many who did not believe in its effectiveness mentioned that they felt it had been poorly thought out and may be difficult to enforce, raising concerns that young people would find ways to circumvent the ban. These concerns were raised both by participants who agreed with the ban, and those who did not.
The most interesting demographic to consider here are, of course, the under 16s, who will be most affected by this decision. Under 16s and 16-18 year olds were asked whether their schools used Yondr pouches or similar alternatives. The average social media screentime for Yondr pouch users – 10.7 hours – was marginally lower than the average for those who did not use Yondr pouches in school – 11.7 hours – indicating some level of effectiveness in these measures. However, the small difference may mean that those who cannot use phones during the day compensate by using their devices more after school. It is important to note that the social media screentime for under 16s – 9 hours – is much lower than the average total for participants based in the UK, which was 17.4 hours. Interestingly, there was little difference between the two when it came to how far they agreed with the ban.
Participants also had the option to answer '5 - Completely Agree'
In terms of social media use, the under 16s surveyed did not indicate that they used X or Facebook, social media platforms that are included in the ban. This raises questions about whether these social media need to undergo the same rigorous age checks as others, when few young people are using them. The social media platforms used most by under 16 respondents were YouTube, Snapchat, and Instagram, in order of most to least used. The respondents commonly reference a need to stay in touch with people. This particular finding shines a light on the way many young people use social media to find a community and sense of belonging, which can be especially difficult for children from marginalised backgrounds, including neurodiverse children and those who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community.
In contrast, over 24s were slightly more likely to agree with the social media ban than average, with the majority also agreeing that social media should have more restrictions. Many participants of this age group also agreed that social media is damaging to mental health, but believed that an outright social media ban would not be as effective as including more education on social media and internet safety within the curriculum. It is likely many over 24s who responded are parents or have family who are young children, and can therefore see the effects of social media from an outside perspective.
Although the ban will primarily affect under 16s, many age groups hold different opinions on its necessity. When asked, 57% of participants believed that social media is important to teen culture, and all age groups were more likely to agree than disagree with its value. 76% of participants felt that young people needed safe spaces online, and many expressed that social media is too ingrained into daily life for a ban to be productive. In light of this, 65% of participants expressed that they felt social media is harmful to mental health, and an even larger proportion expressed a belief that phone addictions are a problem in society.
To determine the root of the issue, participants were asked whether they believed that under 16s use social media too much and whether they believed everyone uses social media too much, and most age groups were more likely to agree that everyone over uses social media rather than believing than that it was a problem specific to under 16s. The age groups this did not apply to were under 16s and over 24s, who more consistently agreed that under 16s use social media too much.
Participants were also asked whether they believed social media to be an educational resource. 38% indicated that they did, and 34% were unsure. YouTube was one of the most used social media platforms, and was the only social media that appeared by itself in this question – some respondents only used YouTube, and no other social media platforms. YouTube has become one of the largest educational resources online, and has overtaken Netflix in daily viewing amongst users. Many use YouTube to access free information, and there are many dedicated channels for GCSE revision, allowing young people from many backgrounds to access the same resources and revision materials that more privileged pupils may otherwise pay for. A ban may remove these opportunities from young people.
When the social media ban was first announced, many who opposed it brought up concerns regarding privacy. To investigate this further, participants were asked whether they trusted social media companies with their information, and whether they believed age checks to be a breach of privacy. Only 4 participants responded that they did trust social media companies with their information – less than 1%. However, opinions were more split when asked whether they believed that age checks are a breach of privacy, with no particular opinion standing out. This is interesting, as by accepting age checking, social media users are handing over IDs and credit cards to social media companies – trusting them with information. Of those surveyed, no one over the age of 22 expressed concerns about submitting their IDs and other information for age verification, however several respondents from varying younger age groups held concerns that the ban was not truly to protect children but rather a replacement for digital ID or a method of government surveillance. These concerns are not unfounded, as in 2025 the US announced plans to use social media posts as evidence to deny a VISA. With many using social media to express their political opinion and raise awareness of causes important to them, concerns that the government may police free speech are widespread. Submitting IDs to verify age could possibly help identify the individual behind a post, which although handy in criminal investigations, could backfire in the case of peaceful protesting or campaigning for change.
Finally, all participants were asked to choose who they believed was most responsible for what young people access online. The options presented were: parents, social media companies, the government, and the young person. Overall, only 2 respondents believed the government should hold the most responsibility, and most respondents believed responsibility to lie with social media companies or parents. This explains why the social media ban may not be so popular. For many, it feels as though the government is trying to take over the responsibility of parenting. Perhaps, however, the ban can be a start to social media reform, and a push for social media companies to move in the right direction. We can only hope that it is a step towards a safer internet.