Won’t somebody please think of the Under 16 Social Media Ban!
Why a ban on under-16s may be about more than protecting children
If it wasn’t so awful it would be great. The last few weeks have seen a good old fashioned moral panic about social media erupt in British politics. Long overdue in my opinion.
Awoken by (and I can’t believe I have to type this), Elon “pedo guy is not defamation” Musk’s new AI tool, that creates synthetic child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and Australia’s newly enacted social media ban for under 16s, the British media and policy making establishment have leapt at the chance to consider tightening restrictions1.
Lord Nash introduced an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill2 that would ban under 16s from becoming users of social media. Then Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Opposition, followed by 60 Labour MPs3 chimed in with their support. This sparked further reaction from the policy community as 42 organisations including the Molly Rose Foundation (MRF) and NSPCC signed a joint letter stating that social media bans are the wrong solution4.
Finally Keir Starmer stepped in and pledged to act in a matter of months, indicating a possible minimum age limit for social media, restricting addictive functions like endless scroll or autoplay and limiting VPN access for children5.
In a few weeks, regulation of social media has gone from looking hazy and impossibly distant to urgent and concrete. While there is an element of “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” to the reaction, the comparison between the nimble House of Lords, grappling with the newest of technologies and the utterly sclerotic US legislature must leave Americans pining for ermine.
Perfect World
Of course, ideally, policy making would not take place in long overdue spasms of reaction.
Our Government, being informed by their constituents and lobbied by knowing experts, would make time in the Parliamentary calendar to debate a proposed solution to an upcoming problem. Parliamentarians would begin the debate with arguments that fit their existing world views and as the debate deepened they would demand more evidence as opposing viewpoints chipped away at their certainties.
The issue of a social media ban for under 16s would pivot on harm. Evidence on the harm social media causes children would be weighed against the potential harm a ban would have. Eventually, most reasonable parliamentarians would be able to agree a compromise ensuring that children gain access to the maximum benefits of this technology with the minimum of risks.
Is this really about the children?
Of course, political debate is to policy what physics is to engineering. As Elon would tell you, any idiot can calculate the thrust to weight ratio for a rocket to reach orbit. Not many can actually get one there.
I must admit, my first instinct when presented with the possibility of a social media ban for the under 16s was “Thank you sir! May I have another?”. So I was confused that so many well respected child-protection organisations came out against a ban. These organisations are both acquainted with the dangers of the social internet and the havoc it has wreaked on children so how could they not be in favour of a ban?
I am no expert, but the reason seems to be that these organisations are further ahead than the country at large on the policy, and have travelled farther down the road of understanding the costs as well as the benefits of a social media ban for under 16s. The MRF points to children finding their way to less regulated sites, being cut off from support networks and failing to develop an understanding of the algorithm-dominated internet that they will inhabit as adults.
And yet, I find myself reluctant to give up this opportunity for a ban. Despite, reasonable calls for evidence-based nuanced policy making from the likes of Ian Russell, who’s daughter, Molly, committed suicide after exposure to negaive online content, I still find myself gravitating to a ban.
This suggests my motives may not be confined to child safety.
Status Quo Bias
Since their inception social media companies along with all internet content delivery systems have benefitted from being regulated more like The Beano than a pack of Marlboro lights. For 20 years however their products and business models have changed to be less and less like the former and increasingly like the latter.
Like the tobacco industry before them, social media platforms are now powerful vested interests with connections and free cash to influence politics. We have let them grow into potent actors in our public sphere so that any debate about their products or business models is muddied by the money and influence they bring to bear.Any politician or parent of a toddler knows it is easier to deny something than to take it away.
Justifying the regulation of tobacco was a challenge for liberals. After all, what consenting adults do to their own bodies is their own business. Yet, in a free society we have still managed to regulate, and drastically reduce tobacco consumption.
We did this in three main ways. The first is that we identified harms that personal tobacco use inflicted on others. Banning smoking in public places and places of work was largely justified by the presence of staff who had to in places where smokers would light up and therefore could not escape the effects of second hand smoke.
The second was a requirement that the adult consent to harm was informed. In this way off-putting packaging that warned of the dangers of smoking were justified. Finally, externalities were considered. Especially in the UK, smoking costs the state and taxpayers money via increased medical costs. It is therefore justified in increasing the tax on tobacco to defray these costs.
We could regulate social media and justify that regulation in similar ways. Limiting the reach of proven harmful content, requiring irritating popups that inform users of the dangers of scrolling and taxing social media companies in a way that reduces harms the state has to remedy.
The Larger Threat
Social media also poses additional threats. It is my opinion that the creation of the Attention Economy Mediated by Smartphones (™) has imperilled democracy to a much greater extent than people realise. Short formats, attention maximising algorithms and frictionless delivery have primed the electorate with simple, compelling, nonsense solutions to our real problems, leading to the rise of populist parties and the end of effective government.
If we take this threat seriously, we are in danger of surrendering our liberty permanently. Perhaps this feels like hyperbole in the UK, but a quick glance across the pond will confirm that when the information system no longer serves truth, the electorate can endanger their future freedom of choice. It is therefore justified to preserve our freedom, pending evidence that these platforms can be regulated safely.
In the same way we could regulate algorithmically curated content delivery on the basis of addiction. Content delivery platforms, by and large, are habit forming and worse, network effects make them painful to leave as you will lose the connections you have built. Collating the evidence of addiction, or abuse of market power, and requiring mitigation are reasonable responses to defend individual freedom.
Power Struggle
So, the social media platforms are addictive monopolies that spread harmful content to an uninformed population increasing the cost of mental health treatment across society. Their core products were a threat to democracy even before their owners were co-opted or willingly joined an authoritarian project.
The opportunity to cut the pipeline of new, inexperienced users to these services is not just a child protection issue. It’s a contest of power. Without their users, these services and the companies they pay for will lose their potency and may fall within the grasp of lowly regulators.
Another path
Imagine a world in which the Government was forward thinking enough to see the potential harm of social media to children. They would have reversed the burden of proof as we do with medicines. Social media would have needed to prove it was safe before children gained access.
In 1908, The Children Act prevented the sale of tobacco to children under the age of 16. There was no scientific consensus on harm at the time and I’m sure that many children (my parents among them) smoked before the legal age. But the government saw the potential risk and acted, saving perhaps millions of children from smoking tobacco during their formative years.
If we’re lucky, social media isn’t as addictive or harmful as tobacco. Just to be sure though, maybe we should ban under 16s from engaging with it.
It wouldn’t be the worst thing if that went some way to neutering the power of this technology over the whole of society too. Indeed, maybe we could consider this a first step.
To stay up to date on these issues I highly recommend the Online Safety Act Network’s Newsletter: OSA Network (2026). Newsletter Archive. Available at: https://us4.campaign-archive.com/home/?u=8569c2a50489c6ef87ca271f2&id=6f3bd44856. [Accessed: 15 February 2026].
Parliament.uk. (2019). Amendment 94A to Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament. [online] Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/20215/amendments/10031850 [Accessed 15 Feb. 2026].
BBC News (2026) More than 60 Labour MPs urge PM to ban social media for under-16s. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dk0g5yk06o [Accessed: 15 February 2026].
Molly Rose Foundation et al. (2026) Joint statement. Available at: https://mollyrosefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Joint-statement-from-childrens-and-online-safety-organisations-experts-and-bereaved-families-on-a-social-media-ban-for-under-16s.pdf [Accessed: 15 February 2026].
