To think we absolutely have to ban social media for under 16s.

I don’t think it’s quite the right comparison because prohibition was for everyone.
We’re not talking about banning social media for everyone, just children.
Similarly, guns wouldn’t be banned for everyone. Police, farmers etc. would still have need for them.

Or is the perfect comparison prohibition? Didn’t stop people drinking and in the long term ended up being overturned

It’s actually the perfect comparison.

It’s the combination of the easy/constant use of the smartphone and the social media and other addictive apps that makes it such a problem. I really don’t think children of any age should have that sort of access. Doesn’t mean they need to be oblivious to what it is or never have any sort of access at all.

I know it’s an extreme comparison but the arguments here seem to be similar for the pro-gun arguments in America.

Everyone already has one. If we ban them, it puts the good people at a disadvantage. We need to teach responsible use.

I think social media in its current form is used for more than it was a couple of years ago and depending on who they follow it can be away to engage in common communities such as booktok or GCSE revision tiktoks. However, how are we to know this is what they are using it for.

We need to not ban social media and phones but create a culture where they use it responsibly - if we completely ban it, they might start going behind our backs to use it! Think of it as - children don't know to wait before crossing a road before we teach them - we never taught them how to use social media respectfully, moderately and safely.

We support The Buddyhood who are a publisher who have created graphic novels that creatively show young people the effects of social media - the first book is called The Dark Side of Food and their new one is called The Dark Side of Fashion that can support children in understanding the effects of social media in a different way.

They have also created a new safe and fully monitored social media wellness platform called Imprint.Live. Industry professionals, teachers, students can all this platform to do good with the ability to do good in the community - they can do this by reacting to certain posts and each theme will be linked to a charity and that charity will be given a donation. The platform starts at 99p per month but this comes fully monitored and screened.

I think we need to adapt with the times as social media isn't going away! but we can restrict and monitor - give them the opportunity to go out and play like we did when we were kids!

Let me know your thoughts!

Just like the vast majority of teenagers don’t drink alcohol?

I think there has to be a line between the freedom to have opinions and speak them and harmful content.
take the pictures that were on mumsnet recently they needed to be removed.
properly removing harmful content is a must

That's what a lot of these people commenting cannot accept. Banning it would, for the vast majority, mean they don't access it.

The examples I'm talking about are not selling goods or services in the UK. They are accessible from the UK, but they are not based here and not subject to UK laws.

I'm opposed to most forms of censorship.

Do you support a ban then or do you just think any content can be uploaded

Correct.

You don’t think content in social media and internet should be regulated?

No.

@Araminta1003 thsnk you it was an interesting read and I agree with its sentiments that it is the content that should be regulated rather than who uses it and recognising that an out and out ban for under 16 is neither particularly enforceable and removes some of the positive benefits

I do feel that platforms should take far more responsibility for what content is online and what content is automatically shown as well and it is a very good first step at dealing with what is going on

https://nya.org.uk/ukyp/youth-select-committee/

https://nya.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/hc-999-youth-violence-and-social-media-online.pdf

“The final report calls for a multi-layered response to youth violence, from stronger regulation of social media – pressingfor tech companies to be transparent about their algorithms, and for the government to conduct and publish an evaluation of the measures they currently have in place, to introduce platform mandates to prioritise user safety. It sets out a range of recommendations and actions for the Government and relevant authorities from investment in early intervention, media literacy education and the need for universal open access youth services. “

On the whole vaping question, we are also known as THE country where public health agencies specifically encouraged vaping.
People need to be careful. Often things are spouted as we are a free & liberal country etc (all true), but there are people behind all of this manipulating and getting rich over it, at the cost of our own people and young. Tech companies have made a ton of money out of data and algorithms and advertising.
Using algorithms on children, for example, is not safe. They have a duty towards our children. Most of these companies do not even pay sufficient tax here for us to use to neutralise the harm, it is all pretty outrageous really. Our only option is to insist that they comply with laws and set those laws at a moderate level, all things considered.

Yes, some parents will always allow access and there will always be a way around things. However, we do regulate alcohol and cigarettes for a reason and if they and drugs were more freely available, far more children would use these. We try and stop the peer pressure to use harmful things, for a reason, and we educate on the potential harms. Same applies to social media content.

It requires regulation, question is how much, how best to do it, simply relying on parents is not good enough. Companies and the Government need to step up. It is pretty much a crisis amongst some of the young.

We should censor and regulate the internet far more than we do for everyone

l

This. Why do people expect everyone else to parent their children?!

The censorship question is interesting.
The far right has long since realised that the internet is unregulated and that is pretty much where they are recruiting the youth, including on YouTube. Bang in the algorithms, I am not sure where I stand on the censorship question anymore.
It is very very easy to manipulate young people online. Questions of “free speech” are far from simple when it comes to the internet and algorithms and unfettered access. Couple in the fact that the status quo appears entirely asleep and is not doing enough online, it really is more of a threat to democracy to do nothing, than to intervene in a moderate way.

Also @ImAChangeling wjereas it is illegal for someone to sell my daughter alcohol is isn’t illegal for me to give her it in my own home

It really isn’t because even if you do require ID etc all it takes is a parent deciding they want their child to have it and sign up for them. Use an older sibling, use someone else’s id.

all the ways under aged people have been getting things for years.

then where is the line with posting children on them - if under 16s are banned should parents be posting pictures online of their children (mine was adamant that as she wasn’t going to post anything of herself due to safety then I wasn’t allowed either which she was right) but how many are going to follow that

then in the UK has a rule then somewhere else doesn’t VPNs can be used to access it - and I suspect many of us use VPNs

It really is. Companies selling goods and services in the UK need to comply with local laws or they won’t be able to operate.

This isn't in any way "simple".

How do you propose levying fines on companies and sites which aren't even based in your country and not subject to your laws?

The only way to prevent them being accessible is to ask ISP's to blanket block access to foreign sites, that's the sort of State censorship practiced in places like China and has absolutely no place in any free and open Democracy. If you think Government would only use this power to restrict access to SM sites for under 16's then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

And that is the problem I am not sure it is workable. All of the things you say alcohol/films/cigarettes the offence is in the selling at home these things aren’t an offence parents can and do override them

my view is that it is easier to try and get them to regulate content then have rules as to the age sign up which can be bypassed.

we could have an age limit on posting videos but dear god parents overrule that too

I would be supportive of a Government initiative really focussing for parents and children the dangers of social media

schiols are starting to roll out apps that do control these things but I have seen threads on here and posts on Facebook that hate this idea too.

I don’t think anyone can deny there is an issue but more that there isn’t an easy answer and I am not convinced it is one that the state can solve