UK to ban social media for under-16s, with sweeping restrictions for all young people
The UK is following in Australia’s footsteps and banning all children under the age of 16 from social media. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the ban on Monday, saying he would introduce legislation to Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected to come into force in the spring of 2027.
The proposed ban is supported by nine out of ten British parents, according to a survey of more than 116,000 people by the government. It is designed to allow less time for scrolling and more time for playing, according to the official announcement of the government.
“Parents want to keep their children safe and happy, but the online world has made that more difficult than ever,” Starmer said in a statement. “I have personally heard families crying for change, we will do well with it.
The ban will affect platforms including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Snap and X. It is not designed to stop under 16s from using messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.
Growing awareness of the harm children can be exposed to through social media, and the mental health problems it can cause or exacerbate, has prompted many countries to consider banning social media for teenagers, with Australia leading the way. The country introduced age restrictions on social media by the end of 2025, serving as a benchmark for other nations around the world. The UK has said it will borrow from Australia’s lessons, using an effective age guarantee to protect children from bypassing safeguards.
The UK’s restrictions will go further than Australia’s by including a blanket ban on any live-streaming services and social networking, which will also place restrictions on gaming sites, Starmer said. Bans on live streaming and communicating with strangers will also be automatically turned on for children under 17, to prevent a 16-year-old ban, he added.
The Prime Minister of the UK, Keir Starmer, made the announcement in front of an audience of parents whose children have been negatively affected by social media.
“We are going further than any country in the world to close social media to under-16s and put in place extensive safeguards to get their children back,” Starmer said. “This is a line in the sand. Tech giants had a chance and failed, but we are stepping in to protect children, give back to parents and set a new normal for future generations.”
Any AI dating chatbots designed to simulate sexual relationships or role play with users will have to enforce a minimum age of 18. The government is also currently looking at curfew laws and breaking down surfing for under-18s, with more details to be announced in July.
How responsive are social media services?
Starmer’s announcement comes a week after he gave tech companies three months to ban children from taking, sending and receiving nude photos. Combined with the Online Safety Act, which requires all online services that may expose children to harmful content to verify people’s ages, the UK laws form some of the strictest global restrictions against large technology companies.
All are designed to keep children safe, but platforms have a different perspective. In response to Starmer’s announcement on Monday, some companies pointed out that banning mainstream platforms could push kids into less regulated, less safe parts of the internet.
“We share the government’s aim to protect young people from online harm,” said a Chat spokeswoman. “However, because most of the time spent on Snapchat is in private messaging between friends and family, direct bans that cut off youth from those relationships do not make them safe — they may push them into unsafe social networks.”
Perhaps the most controversial service to be included in the list of platforms the government plans to block for under-16s is YouTube, which is used in many homes and schools.
“We’ve invested in expert-led, age-appropriate experiences and automated youth protection for more than a decade and will continue to do so,” a YouTube spokesperson said. “YouTube is an important resource for young people, parents and educators. Banning pajamas removes children from curated, supervised, rewarding experiences and anonymous, less safe services.”
Spokespeople for the other social networks listed in the announcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Social media companies aren’t the only ones who have voiced their concerns about the ban. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), also on Monday said the ban may be wrong.
“Although well-intentioned, banning young people from accessing social media is simply not the answer to keeping children safe online,” said Chris Sherwood, the agency’s chief executive on its website. “For countless young people, social media can be helpful. A place where isolated youth find community, where LGBTQ+ youth find acceptance and where neurodiverse children find ways to learn and connect.”
If children are forced to hide their use of social media from their parents, they are less likely to be honest when something goes wrong, such as being a victim of bullying or grooming, he added. “That’s a gift to abusers, not to protect children.”
Children’s right to communicate and have a say in how they should be able to participate in the digital world should not be taken away because technology companies can’t keep them safe, Sherwood said. Instead, the onus should be on tech companies to prioritize the well-being of young people above inclusion metrics, and regulators involved.
His sentiments were echoed by Kerry Moscogiuri, Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, who called the ban “a correct diagnosis but a wrong prescription.”
“You can’t solve a design problem by restricting access,” he said. “If it is found that social networks harm children, the solution should be to control the platforms, not lock them out.”
