- The UK and Australia implemented social media bans for children under 16.
- Over 90% of UK parents favor banning social media for those youth.
- There is debate in the U.S. about potential social media age bans and free speech concerns.
The United Kingdom has joined Australia in banning the use of social media by children younger than 16. The UK announcement called the ban a “landmark government move to give kids their childhood back.”
Read more What’s inside the U.S.-Iran deal to end the 3-month war
Parliament will finalize the ban before Christmas and the protections are expected to be in place by next spring, according to UK officials.
In the news release, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer notes that parents have cried out for help and his government “will do right by them. That’s why we’re going further than any country in the world by banning social media for under-16s and putting wider protections in place to give kids their childhood back.”
He called it a “line in the sand. Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.”
Jean Twenge, a nationally recognized voice on the harm of social media to children, told Deseret News she is happy to see another government moving toward protecting children.
“Kids and young teens are just not ready for the pressures of social media, and they are more susceptible to spending large amounts of time on the apps and missing out on sleep, getting outside, and spending time with friends and family face to face,” said Twenge, author of “10 Rules for Raising Kids in a High-Tech World.”
“Social media was not designed for children or even teens. We age-gate drinking, driving and voting; we should age-gate social media too,” Twenge said by email.
In the news release, Starmer said that “tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.”
When the UK government opened the question for public comment, more than 116,000 responses were submitted and 9 out of 10 parents said they support a social media ban until children are age 16. Two-thirds of young people also agreed that those younger than 16 should not be allowed “to use at least some social media platfoms.”
“The plans will set a new normal for future generations, kickstarting a cultural shift and driving forward the government’s fight to give every child the best start in life,” per the government’s announcement.
The UK ban is similar to that enacted earlier in Australia and will include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but not YouTube Kids. And “we do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban,” the announcement said.
What are the UK restrictions?
The restrictions are more than a simple ban, “with world-leading blocks on harmful functions such as livestreaming and stranger communications with children for under-16s,” which go further than other countries, per the notice. And they apply not just to social media, but to a wider group of online services including gaming sites.
That means those under 16 will not be able to livestream themselves across platforms, per the UK government.
To avoid a cliff-edge at 16, the government said the restrictions will be the default for those 16 and 17. “The government will also be looking in more detail at overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18-year-olds and will set out more detail in July,” the notice added.
Additionally, AI romantic chatbots “designed to simulate sexual relationships or role play with users” must now enforce a minimum age of 18, the UK government said. And similar rules will apply on AI chatbots simulating intimate relationships more widely.
The UK government called it the beginning, not the final step in reining in social media and tech impact on children, adding, “We stand ready to take further measures in the future.”
Are social media bans being honored?
NBC News noted that while children under 16 in Australia have been barred since December from platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Snapchat and Reddit, “authorities have struggled to enforce it. Australia’s eSafety Commission, its top internet regulator, found in March that 7 in 10 parents reported their child still had an account on newly restricted platforms.”
As The New York Times reported, “Six months in, most indications are that young teenagers in Australia who were already using social media are still doing so, although experts expect the benefits will be felt by the next generation.”
Read more Deseret News archives: It started on this day in 1850 for the Deseret News
Starmer pushed back against that as a reason to change course. “They get around other laws, too, but we don’t say, ‘Oh, look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let’s not bother banning alcohol sales to children,’” he said. “We don’t do that, that would be utterly ridiculous, and so I just don’t accept that argument.”
Liz Kendall, who is the secretary over technology in the UK, said they will make it “far harder for children to bypass safeguards.”
Other countries contemplating restrictions
As NPR reported, the move is “part of a growing global movement to tighten online safety for children. Australia, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have introduced legislation or announced age-based restrictions or requirements for children’s access to social media. France, Spain, Denmark, Thailand and South Korea are among others studying or developing similar approaches.”
Austria plans to ban social media for those younger than 14, while Greece is planning a similar ban under age 15. Already in the United States, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act bars companies from collecting personal data of users under 13.
But The New York Times reported that a blanket social media ban for children in the U.S. would be difficult to enact, partly because states have their own laws. Some states, beginning with Utah, have put restrictions on usage, but free speech questions have landed some of those in court.
And blanket bans could bump up against free-speech concerns.
According to NPR, “The ban could further inflame tensions with the U.S., which has warned that regulations should be narrow and not violate free speech protections, according to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in London. It said it was also concerned that regulations could place greater burdens on American technology companies.”
NBC News made a very similar observation. “The ban could further inflame tensions with the U.S. where politicians like Vice President JD Vance have regularly complained about a lack of freedom of speech in Britain.”
The U.S. embassy noted the Trump administration also wants to protect children, but said the most effective path forward focuses on “robust tools” so parents and legal guardians can manage their child’s privacy settings, screen time, content and account controls.
The U.S. also favors “healthy options rather than outright bans,” including incentives for platforms to provide age-appropriate alternatives that parents can choose as options.
The statement warned that restrictions on “developing” and “designing” technologies could stifle innovation.
“We favor narrowly targeted requirements primarily with respect to pornographic and adult commercial content,” including tobacco and alcohol sales and online gambling, for instance, the embassy wrote.
The ban is likely to be a topic discussed at the Group of Seven Summit this week in France.
A communications systems professor at University of Cambridge, Jon Crowcroft, told NPR that social bans are well-meaning, but probably misguided and that changes could prevent children from accessing needed sites.
“There is a real risk this will drive some users to worse sites and policing devices is close to impossible technically,” he said. “Policing platforms is far easier, if only regulators would bother.”
A handful of exceptions
In the “note to editors” section of the UK government press release, UK officials said they want to make sure the ban doesn’t impact educational services, e-commerce platforms or music streaming” so there will be a “narrowly defined list of exemptions” that will be reviewed.
The note also said children will still be able to participate in multiplayer games online.
The UK announced separately that it will allocate an additional £132.5 million for “enriching activities” through its Every Child Can program, which focuses on sports, art and nature both in school and in community activities.
Read more What went right — and wrong — at the White House fights