Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

209 replies

Bitethehandthatfeedsyou · 29/03/2025 06:59

I just don’t understand with all evidence that we have to say how awful it is for young people why we’re not banning in for under 16s. I’ve not spoken to 1 parent who wouldn’t be in favour of it.

I do know it’s not a silver bullet and there is ann idea that young people would be penalised for big tech not taking responsibility for exploiting children.

Quite rightly smoking, vaping and alcohol are out of bounds for under 18s and arguably access to social media and a young age is as harmful / more harmful than any of these.

On a cynical note too, surely it would be a huge vote winner for whichever party goes about implementing it too.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
MermaidMummy06 · 29/03/2025 07:51

AusMumhere · 29/03/2025 07:12

Australia banned it for under 16's last year

It hasn't made much difference, though. My 9 & 12 year olds pester me because their friends use social media. Not FB or insta, but so many more.

YouTube is still available. Its much, much worse.

YessandNno · 29/03/2025 07:48

I agree that something should be done to restrict access, even though it would be very difficult (impossible?) to police it. Legislation prohibiting under-16s from having a smartphone, for example, would at least give parents some clout when refusing to get their youngsters a phone. It's easier to say "I can't give you a phone because it's against the law" rather than "I don't think you should have one till you're older".

Smartphones should definitely not be allowed in schools. If children need a phone to contact their parents, they can have a simple brick phone - or use the phone in the school office.

RaspberryRipple2 · 29/03/2025 07:47

I am sceptical that your view is shared by a majority of parents or that an increased age limit would have any effect tbh. I have a dd in y7 (age 11) and many of her friends have TikTok/insta which parents must be happy with.

i do agree that the response to a Netflix drama is somewhat hysterical though, and wonder why - eg how the response would have differed if Jamie’s family was of an ethnic minority or living in poverty. People seem to think it isn’t fictional?

SeaSwim5 · 29/03/2025 07:46

AlmosttimeforChristmas · 29/03/2025 07:34

not true. SO many parents are deciding not to give their children smartphones. Much easier if you know a few likeminded parents. You can set up a local or school WhatsApp group, which is what I did at my children’s schoos
https://smartphonefreechildhood.co.uk/join/
also, smartphone alternatives:
https://smartphonefreechildhood.co.uk/alternatives

Smart phones are just devices, they are not inherently dangerous. The issue comes with how they are used and what they are used to do.

My DC have used smartphones to learn Spanish, cook recipes, keep in touch with relatives overseas and find directions. I won’t be banning them from the modern world because other parents want the state to parent for them.

Are this group going to advocate removing TVs from under 16s because there are porn channels available?

Bartoz · 29/03/2025 07:40

We don’t need a government ban (though it would be welcome). All parents have to do is go to their child’s smartphone and delete TikTok, IG, Snap and whatever other app they feel is having a negative influence. Keep what ever generic messaging app they want to use to communicate with their child. Will that end online bullying, porn disseminating etc - no, but it will go a long way.

Will there be arguments in the house, yes. Will there be tears, yes. Will their child shout and scream, yes. It’s all worthwhile.

Thats what I did and it was the best decision I ever made. My children admit they are far happier and feel better.

That’s all it takes.

TENSsion · 29/03/2025 07:39

Absolutely agree.
I think it’s lazy and negligent parents who will fight for it rather than have to consider being firm with their children.

ThisPinkBee · 29/03/2025 07:38

I know why.

It's because the government's economic strategy is hinged on prioritising making the UK a powerhouse / world leader in AI. They are investing huge amounts in digital - for example I am sure the announcing civil service cuts and scalling back will be assisted by AI efficiencies to continue to deliver what they do with less people.

So banning social media for under 16s will be incongruous with the strategy for the future, young people being key in future economic strategy.

I absolutely would not rely on government to act. Look at the history of how long it took for action of historic child sexual Exploitation and the recognition that its not a young person's fault. Even that is a fragile progress - it just takes a pendulum swing back towards appalling attitudes that keep abuse hidden or swept under the carpet.

So I think the options are pushing to ban smart phones in schools, parents being more firm, someone launching a company that makes safe mobiles and safe social networks, a media campaign/protests, and legal action / use of the law by members of the public in cases against social media firms.

Superhansrantowindsor · 29/03/2025 07:37

This needs tackling from a variety of angles. Social media companies need to do more, the government needs to use the law and parents need to do their bit too.
I absolutely think anyone under 15 should not have a social media. I said on another thread that the damage it is doing to our children is a public health crisis.

GivingUpFinally · 29/03/2025 07:36

Bailamosse · 29/03/2025 07:26

Or parents could, parent.

I agree. Withnthis statement and what the op is saying. I have a pre teen and all social media is valued including you tube. Dc can only use you tube if they are looking up something specific. Ie. Volcanic eruptions.

Dc also has a phone but no access to data and media. Not sure how long we can get away with this as dc is yr7.

Parents need to step up and make access to their children acceptable to them. Whatever that may be. It starts at home. The government can help when parents need someone to blame.

Sugar intake, screen time, social media etc are all under the purview of parenting. It's a choice.

AlmosttimeforChristmas · 29/03/2025 07:34

ClearHoldBuild · 29/03/2025 07:25

Or parents could not give their children a smartphone until they’re 16. But that’ll never happen. Many parents use smartphones as a convenient babysitter, giving their children these devices but not accepting any responsibility. Why has the onus got to be on the government making a law. How on earth would it be policed?

not true. SO many parents are deciding not to give their children smartphones. Much easier if you know a few likeminded parents. You can set up a local or school WhatsApp group, which is what I did at my children’s schoos
https://smartphonefreechildhood.co.uk/join/
also, smartphone alternatives:
https://smartphonefreechildhood.co.uk/alternatives

join — Smartphone Free Childhood

Smartphone Free Childhood is a grassroots movement on a mission to keep childhood smartphone free. We want to connect parents in their local communities so that together they can make a pact not to give their children smartphones until at least 14, or...

https://smartphonefreechildhood.co.uk/join

Bitethehandthatfeedsyou · 29/03/2025 07:34

Bailamosse · 29/03/2025 07:26

Or parents could, parent.

I’d say that most parents do just that. But it’s really overwhelming and for this generation of kids and parents, it’s unprecedented.

OP posts:
SilverDoe · 29/03/2025 07:33

Yes, I agree. While I do allow my kids to play games and watch YouTube, I check what they watch and their settings on games are controlled so no messages or voice chats, I draw the line at social media or any 2 way communications basically.

I am surprised by the reactions of close family members when this has come up. One person feels like it's an invasion of privacy to check up on kids like that, and one thinks that it's unfair because all their friends have it so they will feel left out.

I don't trust either of their judgements on this to be honest. And luckily I think it will be much more common for children to not have smart phones etc by the time my kids (oldest is 9) are old enough to think about this.

Zanatdy · 29/03/2025 07:29

It will never happen and like banning anything, it will just drive it underground, kids will find a way. Not all parents would support it, so some kids would have it. It’s too late to turn the tap off. Maybe children’s phones should have restrictions on them, though ways around that too. Mine are 30, 20 and 17 and all grown up with social media, though not as much for the 30yr old. My DD chose not to use tik tok until she was around 15. I don’t think she is a major social media user even now. She herself sees the negatives from it.

Onlyvisiting · 29/03/2025 07:29

Would make more sense to enforce the current age limit first. If 13 is ignored then 16 will be too.

And what classes as social media? YouTube seems quite problematic too when it's unsupervised but I don't think it's SM as such is it?

Generally I think kids lives are made significantly worse by access to the Internet.

I feel the irony though as I grew up with out any of it (got dial up when I was about 9) and now my phone is welded to my phone.....

Bailamosse · 29/03/2025 07:26

Or parents could, parent.

SeaSwim5 · 29/03/2025 07:25

I think the response to this adolescence show is getting way out of proportion now.

Banning social media is a very simplistic idea. Like it or not, it is here to stay and DC need to be taught how to use it safely. Tech giants also should be regulated so that they’re not pushing harmful content at young people.

For me, the idea of handing 16 year olds total freedom on social media (when they are also becoming more independent in other areas) would be disastrous. Far better that it takes place from 13 and they have the support and supervision of parents.

I also think a big part of the issue is DC not having enough independence in ‘real life’, so they are becoming addicted to social media. I had teens in the 2010s, and this was not nearly as big an issue. Parents have now become too overprotective in stopping DC from accessing the real world, so many are spending all their time on TikTok.

ClearHoldBuild · 29/03/2025 07:25

Or parents could not give their children a smartphone until they’re 16. But that’ll never happen. Many parents use smartphones as a convenient babysitter, giving their children these devices but not accepting any responsibility. Why has the onus got to be on the government making a law. How on earth would it be policed?

Flowersinthehood · 29/03/2025 07:23

Social media needs much much tighter regulation for everyone. There’s a book coming out which claims Facebook/Meta sold data to companies including information on when a teenage girl has deleted a selfie, so cosmetic surgery/ weight loss, skin care advertising can target her relentlessly when she’s at her lowest. I mean that is just all shades of fucked up.
We need to have honest conversations about our own SM too. Can we really control it for teens if we ourselves are addicted?

NorthernGirl1981 · 29/03/2025 07:22

How would this be enforced though?

I understand that alcohol and cigarettes aren’t sold to people under 16/18, but that’s because there is an adult human being at the cashier checking proof of age.

How can an iPad, or computer or an App verify a users age? Usually it just asks “Are you over 18 years old?” and you just have to click on either the yes or no option. A 7 year old could do that.

And most cunning teenagers have the ability to obtain their parent’s credit card or ID to access things online that they shouldn’t be if such information is asked for.

My son doesn’t have unsupervised access to the internet but the amount of his friends who have phones with internet access on amazes me. I have seen and heard some of the content they watch and it horrifies me.

As another poster said, there should be an element of safe use of the platforms being taught to the children, but ultimately peer pressure is very strong in school, and if parents don’t have some level of supervision of what their tween/teenager is accessing then things will spiral.

minnienono · 29/03/2025 07:16

my dc had facebook from younger which was fine, mostly they were friends with family and i monitored it, but they didn’t have smartphones because they were still not ubiquitous, both had one for their 13th birthday.

The key is good parental supervision and the dc being mature enough to discern right from wrong along with an open conversation so they will report to you any problems. Closed media like WhatsApp groups in a way are worse because you as a parent can’t see it

Itonlytakesone · 29/03/2025 07:13

Wow the poll says it all.! It scares me too

Bitethehandthatfeedsyou · 29/03/2025 07:12

Scottishexplorer · 29/03/2025 07:11

I don’t think it’s necessary to ban. Better to teach responsible use.

But how? It’s like an addiction for so many kids and it’s absolutely designed to be like that.

OP posts:
AusMumhere · 29/03/2025 07:12

Australia banned it for under 16's last year

miamimmmy · 29/03/2025 07:12

As with the environment, self regulation by individuals and individual companies has failed. It’s time for govt to correct market failures.