Views
Social media ban for under-16s explained: What it means, why it’s being proposed, and what could work instead
The UK government is planning a social media ban for children under 16. Details have not been finalised but proposals include minimum age requirements and restrictions on certain type of features. This article explains what a social media ban could look like, why it’s being discussed, whether evidence suggests it would work, and the alternatives for making young people safer online.
Key takeaways
- The UK government is planning a social media ban for under 16s to be implemented in the Spring of 2027
- The aim is to reduce online harm and improve children’s wellbeing
- There is currently little evidence that a social media ban will reduce harm
- Regulating social media companies, and changing the design of social media, is a more effective way of creating safer online environments
What is the proposed social media ban?
In spring 2026, the UK government ran a consultation on a social media ban for under 16s. They ran surveys for parents and carers, children and young people, and civil society.
The consultation resulted in an ‘overwhelming public demand for action’ and the government are currently planning a ban.
Details are still to be confirmed, but the ban will follow the Australian model and include prohibiting social media companies from providing services to under 16s and prevent under 16s from accessing ‘harmful functions’ on online services.
Livestreaming and strangers contacting children will also be restricted for 16 and 17 year olds.
What do we mean by social media?
When thinking about social media, there are some obvious apps that jump into our minds:
- Tik Tok
- Snapchat
- YouTube
But we’re also talking streaming services like Twitch, online gaming, and some forms of AI chats. A social media ban impacts a wide range of digital services.
Why is the UK considering a social media ban?
*Trigger warning: mentions of forms of violence against girls*
More children and young people are online and there is increasing concern about the impacts social media is having on children and young people’s mental health, physical wellbeing, and attitudes.
Surveying over 2400 parents, Ofcom found 85% of children aged 3-5 go online, 60% have their own social media profile, and the top apps/sites visited were social media platforms YouTube, WhatsApp, and Snapchat.
Girls experience high levels of violence online, which impacts their mental health and their access to education and play, such as online gaming.
We are seeing boys struggle with mental health and an increase in misogynistic attitudes.
Teachers have increasingly raised concerns about sexist and violent behaviour in the classroom using online technology and the influence of extreme misogynistic online ‘manosphere’ content. Primarily this behaviour is often boys being violent towards their girl peers or women teachers.
Specific behaviours include:
- Sexist and misogynistic comments
- Sexual and emotional abuse
- Using AI to create images and videos of naked women and girls without their consent, including images of women and girls performing sexual acts, also known as ‘image based abuse’ and ‘deep fakes’
Has social media gotten worse?
We are online more
There have been many developments in tech, the online world, and social media since the 90s. We no longer ‘go online’ like it’s a separate location, choosing between visiting a website and using the landline.
Instead, we consistently move between being online and offline and maintain a foothold in both. Using the internet to check bus times, scanning a QR code to order food, and accessing your bank account online. The internet is far more ingrained into our lives.
Including social media. Many of us swap social media handles instead of phone numbers and use a social media platform instead of texting.
Technology reflects existing inequalities
The inequalities that impact our civil, justice, and education systems have been baked into social media’s technological advancements, creating an unsafe environment for women and girls, as well as other marginalised people.
Platforms make money by keeping us scrolling
Social media has also become more addictive.
Big tech companies have spent billions researching and developing platforms and algorithms that capitalise on brain science to capture our attention and keep us scrolling to maximise revenue.
Algorithms control what we see
Social media platforms categorise users and push out certain content to them, creating ‘echo chambers’.
Over the last decade, platforms have increasingly targeted men and boys with severe misogynistic content, known as the ‘manosphere’, leading to increasing misogynistic opinions amongst boys, poorer mental health, and increase of violence against women and girls – particularly in schools.
Is social media making boys misogynistic?
Extreme misogynistic ‘manosphere’ content creators have used the expectations and pressures boys feel to behave a certain way and tapped into their insecurities to make emotionally compelling content that teaches boys to control and dominate women.
This has lead to increasingly misogynistic attitudes amongst young men in the UK.
What is the manosphere?
The “manosphere” is a network of online communities promoting extremist and hateful ideologies, rooted in anger and resentment towards women.
It encompasses various groups such as Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), Pick Up Artists (PUAs) and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs).
These groups hold core beliefs of hating women and men being the true victims of society. Manosphere influencers encourage a narrow view of masculinity as being physically strong, rich, and exerting power over others.
Why are boys seeing extremely misogynisitc manosphere content?
Social media services platform manosphere content and use their advanced technology to push it into the feeds of boys and young men.
This has allowed misogynist extremists to build a high following, become role models, and make an income.
What are the impacts of the manosphere?
In the last decade, the amount of manosphere content has grown, and with it, boys attitudes have become increasingly misogynistic and violent.
Coupled with young people’s increased access to technology such as smartphones and technological advancements like AI and it’s created an environment for technology- assisted violence against women and girls to thrive.
How will a social media ban work?
The UK government is considering different options for a social media ban, including:
- Legally requiring social media services to have a minimum age restriction to using their platform, most likely age 16
- Daily screen time limits for social media apps
- Restricting overnight access for social media applications
- Requiring social media applications to restrict certain features, such as live streaming
- Having an age restriction on AI chatbots
- Restricting live streaming and strangers from contacting children online for under 18s
Would a social media ban work?
There is currently little evidence that social media bans are effective at reducing children’s social media use. The first national ban was implemented by Australia in December 2025, and early findings do not suggest a reduction in social media use.
History has also shown that people will find ways around bans, and we expect young people will too.
There is no evidence that social media bans improve behaviour or reduce violence.
Should social media be banned for children under 16?
We do not believe that a social media ban will make social media safer.
Everyone should be able to connect with loved ones, learn new things, and have fun on social media.
A social media ban for under 16s excludes young people from the benefits of social media and expects 16s and over to experience the harms of poorly regulated content, social media addiction, and the violence against women and girls that it encourages.
What are the risks of banning children from social media?
- Excluding children and young people from information and advocacy on their health, rights, and support services
- Isolation from supportive communities, especially for young people who have limited representation in their local area or traditional media – such as LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, or particular ethnic minority communities
- Expecting children to suddenly emerge into a risky online world unprepared
- Harming children’s digital literacy, including recognising and avoiding harm
- Biased assumptions that young people have access to alternatives – for example, arguments that young people should play outside instead of being online assumes they have safe access to playgrounds, parks, or youth services which is not always the case
There is also a moral element to this question: If we are honest with ourselves, we live a lot online. Are we prepared to model spending less time online for young people? And if not, is it reasonable to ask young people to spend less time online?
What could work instead of a social media ban?
To truly make social media safe, we need to take a primary prevention approach and shift focus from what individuals can do, to making the environment safer.
Regulate technology companies
Regulation means assigning tech companies with a responsibility to make social media safe and take their duty of care to its users seriously. Building safety, wellbeing, and accessibility into the design of social media platforms and algorithms will create a good experience for everyone – including children.
We already expect companies to meet minimum safety standards. Food manufacturers must comply with food safety standards, builders must comply with building regulations to create safe structures, employers must protect workers through health and safety law, and broadcasters must adhere to regulations around factual information and violent content.
Social media companies could be expected to meet similar minimum safety requirements to ensure we are using a safe product.
Improve content moderation
Social media companies can remove harmful content in the same way platforms remove copyright infringement.
They can also invest in improving the process to report harmful content, including efficiently taking such content down and removing abusive platform users and content creators.
Stop paying people to make violent content
Social media companies can ‘Demonetise’ violent and extreme content, aka stop paying influencers to produce harmful content.
Many social media influencers make money from their social media content, including content that is not sponsored. This includes manosphere influencers that are promoting violent and dangerous behaviour.
Make algorithms safer
Redesign algorithms to include more diverse content in people’s feeds.
Allow and promote content that increases people’s understanding of health, including sign posting to mental health support.
Stop designing for addiction
Social media companies can redesign platforms to be less addictive and encouraging of endless scrolling.
Support from children and young people’s organisations
Organisations focussed on improving the lives of children and young people, such as NSPCC, Children in Scotland, the Children’s Commissioner, Amnesty International, support regulation and a safety by design approach to the urgent challenges of social media.
Why don’t social media companies already do this?
Social media companies invest in making their platforms as engaging as possible to generate revenue.
Some of the safety features we suggest would reduce engagement and revenue streams.
Regulation would influence the incentives for social media companies, just as regulation and safety standards have in other industries.
What should the government do to make social media safer?
As well as regulating tech companies and social media platforms, the government can invest in national programmes and campaigns that equip people with the skills to think critically, be respectful, and make responsible decisions.
Education
Compulsory inclusive Relationship, Sexual Health, and Parenthood education that covers misogyny, online harm, and men’s violence against women and girls.
Prevention
Invest in prevention programmes that create spaces for boys and men to explore masculinity, gender, and sex.
Invest in offline spaces, such as youth clubs, for young people to socialise, access advice, and learn new skills.
Digital literacy
Embed digital literacy skills into the educational system to increase young people’s critical thinking and support them to recognise influencers financial motivations, identify doctored images and videos, and recognise and value credible sources.
Conclusion
We believe everyone should be able access the knowledge, connection, and fun that the online world has to offer without being exposed to preventable harm – including young people.
A social media ban will not address the harms of social media. Instead, the government can require technology companies to design safer platforms, creating a healthier online environment, and invest in equipping children with the skills engage with content critically and navigate the online world confidently.
RSS
