The UK has a blanket social media ban for children under 16

Children under the age of 16 will be banned from using social media platforms in the UK, under new measures announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday.

Starmer said: “The need for action is very clear. Social media is making our children unhappy and insecure.” Share X. “Our children deserve better.”

Under-16s will lose access to social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, while the minimum age for chats that simulate romantic interactions will be raised to 18. The ban does not apply to messaging services WhatsApp and Signal.

Under the new measures, expected to come into force in the spring of 2027, the UK government will also ban live streaming features and the ability of strangers to contact children under 16 across all platforms.

In a bid to restrict late-night scrolling, it will also consider imposing a nightly social media curfew for under-18s, with details to follow in July.

The UK government has described the social media ban as an attempt to protect children from extremist and graphic content and other online harm, such as bullying. “This is a line in the sand,” Starmer said He added. “The tech giants had their chance and failed, but we are stepping in to protect children, support parents and create a new normal for future generations.”

Meta, Snap, X, and TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment. “YouTube is a vital resource for young people,” said Jay Stoll, YouTube spokesperson. Teachers and parents. Blanket bans push children out of such coordinated, supervised and beneficial experiences, and push them towards anonymous and less safe services.

Although British politicians have considered restricting teenagers’ use of social media for a number of years, the idea has only gained popularity since the Australian government. Imposing a similar ban– the first of its kind – last November. The issue has become surprisingly prominent in recent elections at all levels, several MPs told WIRED, and opposition parties have also come out in support of the ban.

The ban in the UK follows a Public consultation The process, which ran from March to May, attracted more than 100,000 applications from parents, academics, lobbyists, government bodies and the like. The government announced the new measures before publishing the full results of the consultation, which it promised to publish by the end of the summer.

A former special adviser to Starmer’s Labor government, who requested anonymity to discuss internal party affairs, says they believe Starmer rushed to impose the ban in an attempt to shore up parliamentary support, anticipating a challenge to his leadership. “This issue is important to voters, and the high-pressure by-election (the equivalent of a special election in the US) and threats of a leadership challenge have forced Downing Street to act,” they say.

preliminary Research briefing Publications published by the government indicate that participants in the consultation were broadly divided into three camps: those who supported a complete ban on social media for under-16s; those who supported bans on certain features; And those who objected to any form of restriction.

More than 90 percent of parents responded to the consultation Support total ban. One of Most vocal advocates Esther Guy, the mother of transgender teen Brianna Guy, was He was killed by two fellow school students in 2023. Guy said in her report that her daughter’s mental health struggles were “significantly exacerbated by the harmful content she was viewing online.”

Those who have called for restrictions on so-called high-risk features, rather than outright bans, describe the ban as an overly blunt instrument. “Something has to change, absolutely,” says Rowan Ferguson, policy director at the Molly Rose Foundation, a suicide prevention charity. “But what really worries us about the ban is that the government is choosing to rush into solutions that are not supported by the evidence, rather than address the causes of harm.” Ferguson and others have argued that the root of the problem lies in the addictive design of these products, which the ban does not address.