This article was originally published on February 3, 2026. It has since been updated to reflect the UK government’s announcement of plans to ban under-16s from major social media platforms

For years now, anxieties over social media’s impact on young people have been mounting. Unsurprisingly so: a growing body of evidence suggests that excessive use of platforms like TikTok and Instagram can cause a number of troubling effects, from poor mental health to reduced cognitive function. Plus, with the rise of generative AI, much of social media is now awash with computer-generated content, which is increasingly difficult to identify as fake.

In light of this, policymakers around the world have started taking drastic action against the escalating crisis. In December 2025, Australia implemented a ban on social media access for children under 16, requiring major companies – including TikTok, Meta, X and more – to ensure under-16s do not have accounts on their platforms, with fines of up to $49.5 million AUD for failure to comply.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed that under-16s will be banned from using major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Facebook and YouTube, as part of a wider package of online safety measures. The government has also outlined plans to restrict livestreaming for under-16s, limit contact from strangers on some platforms and prevent under-18s from accessing romantic or sexual AI chatbots.

On the surface, it’s easy to see why the policy has proved popular. Many campaigners argue that stronger action is urgently needed to protect young people from addictive design, harmful content and online abuse. But critics, including child safety campaigners and tech companies, have warned that a ban could push teenagers towards less regulated platforms, raise privacy concerns around age verification and create a false sense of security.

So, is an under-16 social media ban really the panacea it’s being made out to be? Below, we speak to experts about the pros and cons of the proposals.

NICK COULDRY, AUTHOR AND PROFESSOR OF MEDIA, COMMUNICATIONS, AND SOCIAL THEORY EMERITUS AT LSE

A social media ban for under-16s might temporarily, and to some degree, protect some young people from the harmful content on social media. There are however clear drawbacks. First, it is a ban targeted only at specific platforms, so it may push young people to other platforms that are not subject to the ban and under even less regulatory scrutiny. Second, there may be easy workarounds, for example via VPNs. Third, it appears to target young people, which is unfortunate, since the problem of social media was not created by young people, and there are manifestly some benefits also from being connected with other young people. Fourth (and most fundamentally), people over 16 also suffer from harms due to social media, but their situation is not considered.

The age-related social media ban targets just one symptom, rather than the core, of the problem with social media. The core problem is that we have delegated to private businesses the design and management of our main spaces for being social. Their business models are designed to extract profit from our social interactions. The basic conditions of social interactions – what I call in a recent book ‘the space of the world’ – should not be something from which you can profit, since they are too basic to our social life. We need a much bolder approach that outlaws toxic business models that seek to make profit out of social life itself. 

An under-16 social media ban should be understood as a public health intervention, not a moral panic or technophobic reaction

PAUL NOBLET, INTERIM HEAD OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND RESEARCH AT YOUNGMINDS

As a mental health charity that supports both young people and parents, YoungMinds welcomes the commitment by politicians of all parties to tackle the harms caused by social media content. However, it is vital that in any discussion of restrictions we listen closely to young people and concerned parents, as we know that for some, social media can provide timely information and access to supportive communities and organisations.

DENNIS OUGRIN, PROFESSOR OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY AND GLOBAL MENTAL HEALTH AT QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

Early adolescence is a period of heightened emotional reactivity, and social media platforms are designed to exploit these vulnerabilities. Under-16s are also disproportionately exposed to sexualised content and grooming, cyberbullying and harassment and extremist material. There is now converging evidence linking heavy social media use to increased anxiety and depressive symptoms, self-harm, suicidality, and body image dissatisfaction, and we have one study that shows a causal relationship between reducing screen time and improved mental well-being. Current moderation and parental controls have demonstrably failed to protect this group.

A ban should be part of a layered strategy, not a standalone fix. We should consider banning persuasive design features for minors (such as infinite scroll, ‘streaks’, and algorithmic amplification), require default time limits, and teach children how platforms manipulate attention and emotion. We also need to invest in sports, arts and nature-based activities, especially in deprived areas. An under-16 social media ban should be understood as a public health intervention, not a moral panic or technophobic reaction.

Banning social media for under-16s cannot be treated in the same way as banning, for example, smoking or vaping

DR MARGARITA PANAYIOTOU, LECTURER IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

A blanket ban without any robust evidence-base risks producing worse outcomes than it seeks to address. Bans may drive online activity underground, pushing young people toward less regulated or encrypted platforms. Bans may also remove important sources of social connection and support, particularly for vulnerable adolescents, and exacerbate digital exclusion.

It is essential not to lose sight of the complexity of adolescent development and mental health. Young people are shaped by multiple interacting systems, including family, school, peers, community, and wider social and economic contexts. It is therefore overly simplistic to frame social media as the primary cause of mental health difficulties. Any legislation must reflect this complexity and be informed by robust evidence, careful evaluation, and meaningful engagement with young people themselves.

MIRANDA PALLAN, PROFESSOR OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PUBLIC HEALTH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM 

Banning social media for under-16s cannot be treated in the same way as banning, for example, smoking or vaping. We know that smoking and vaping are bad for our health and laws are in place to restrict access of children and young people to these products. Even though adults are legally allowed to smoke and vape, there is a clear message that these are bad for our health and they are discouraged for everyone. If a social media ban for under-16s is introduced, there will be an abrupt point in young people’s lives when they go from not being allowed to access social media, to a world where social media is widely used and they are expected to engage with it, without having had the opportunity to build their social media skills. There needs to be some thought given to how to help young people transition into the social media world when they reach the age of 16.

Young people should absolutely be protected from the harmful effects of social media and other online spaces, but the way to do that is complicated, nuanced and ultimately a balance of harms and benefits. It is unlikely that one measure on its own will provide the solution. At the heart of this debate are young people themselves, and we must ensure that we listen to young people and find out how they want to be supported in navigating the online world.