Back 16+ social media ban in 15 secs

[PorpoiseWithPurpose]

If you’re worried about social media and your children, here’s a 15 second thing you can do today.

This is a pre-written email to your local MP asking them to raise the social media age to 16. Just add your name and postcode and it does the rest.

Email your MP here (15 seconds):
https://smartphonefreechildhood.eaction.org.uk/raise-the-age

This week, Keir Starmer said he’s considering an Australia-style age limit on social media, so this issue is live in Parliament right now and your voice can genuinely influence what happens next.

Please also forward this and share it in school year groups, class chats, sports teams, and family groups. Anyone can take part, and every extra message increases the impact.

This isn’t party-political. It’s about protecting children from addictive, algorithm-driven platforms and making it easier for families to hold the line together.

I do understand that concern. But I’m not sure early exposure is actually teaching them how to navigate it well.

At the moment we’re not “gradually educating” children through social media. We’re exposing 11 and 12 year olds to adult-level platforms driven by algorithms.

We don’t say children should start drinking at 13 so they can handle alcohol better at 16. We accept that maturity matters.

By 16 they’re generally more emotionally developed, more able to understand permanence, consequences and reputation. And if we’re doing our job as parents, schools can use those earlier years to teach digital literacy without them being fully immersed in it.

Also, mistakes at 13 don’t magically disappear. They’re often still there at 16 and beyond. Delaying access doesn’t create risk, it reduces the window for it.

I’d rather my child enter that world later, with more maturity and proper preparation, than throw them in early and hope they learn to swim.

I don’t think “some will still use it” means the policy fails.

Some teens will always get around restrictions. They always have. That doesn’t mean we remove age limits on alcohol, gambling or driving because a determined minority can bypass them.

Most children follow what’s easy and normal. If social media isn’t openly available, usage drops.

Also, social media isn’t currently easy to monitor anyway. Encrypted messaging, disappearing content and private accounts already make it difficult. The idea that it’s currently transparent and manageable for parents isn’t true.

If anything, shifting the norm so primary-aged kids simply aren’t supposed to be on it gives parents more leverage. It becomes easier to say no when it’s backed by policy and most peers aren’t on it either.

A few Australian teens telling a journalist they’re still using it doesn’t tell us how many stopped, reduced usage or delayed joining.

I think that’s slightly misrepresenting the argument.

No one is saying it’s “too dangerous to look at a Facebook post at 15” and then magically fine 12 months later. It’s about setting a sensible minimum age, like we do with lots of other things. We accept there has to be a line somewhere, even if maturity doesn’t switch on overnight.

And 16 year olds gaining independence is exactly the point. They’re closer to adulthood and generally better able to understand permanence and consequences. A 12 or 13 year old simply isn’t in the same place developmentally.

I don’t know if you’ve got older children, but I’m coming at this as a mum of primary-aged kids.

From where I’m standing, the idea of delaying access doesn’t feel disastrous, it feels protective.

Yeah, I have a just turned 16yo. It isn't some teens still using SM. It is all/most of them. They think the ban is a joke, and the enforcement attempts are a laugh.

Some of their workarounds are frankly ingenious. Happily, it never really came up for us with DS2 turning 16 when he did so we dont have skin in the game.

But you can pretend about a ban all you like if it will make you feel better. You will need to implement it very differently to here though.

As a PP said, you may have to remove devices entirely from under 16s to gain traction. And good luck enforcing that.

Dunno what the solution is. Maybe there isnt one.

There’s no need to be patronising.

I’m not “pretending” anything to make myself feel better. I’m looking at this as a parent of younger children and thinking about harm reduction, not perfection.

I don’t doubt that some 16 year olds are still using it. But “they’ll get around it” has been said about every age restriction ever introduced. Some will. That doesn’t mean reducing overall exposure has no value.

You might feel there isn’t a solution. I’m not convinced that doing nothing is better.

These ‘other things’ you talk about are not so integral to life as social media though. No one needs to smoke or drink alcohol, and many don’t.

There is also much clearer evidence that any alcohol or cigarette use is dangerous, which isn’t the case with social media. Social media is simply a platform- the issues can come with how and what it’s used to do.

This is a simplistic solution to a complex problem.

Lockdown had a huge effect on young people’s mental health and ability to learn social skills. We have also striped away many of the opportunities they once had to socialise in person through budget cuts and overprotective parenting.

We then have spiralling mental health issues caused by all of the above, with totally insufficient resources to deal with them. Fixing these issues will require a lot more money and time than just screaming ‘ban social media’, which politicians in search of quick and cheap fixes don’t want to do.

There is also much clearer evidence that any alcohol or cigarette use is dangerous, which isn’t the case with social media. Social media is simply a platform

——-

You say there isn’t clear evidence of social media harm?

There is UK evidence directly from young people THEMSELVES. Nearly 1,700 teens gave written evidence to a Parliamentary committee saying social media affects their mental and physical health, including body image, diet and activity depending on what they’re exposed to. That’s not a tabloid headline. That’s formal evidence to Parliament.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/88927/html/

The Royal Society for Public Health linked social media use with anxiety, poor sleep and body image concerns in young people:
https://www.rsph.org.uk/our-work/publications/statusofmind.html

The World Health Organisation has reported rising levels of “problematic social media use” among teenagers across Europe, including difficulty controlling use and negative effects on wellbeing, and has called for healthier digital habits and policy attention:
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/25-09-2024-teens–screens-and-mental-health

And the US Surgeon General has said we cannot conclude social media is safe for children and adolescents and highlighted significant mental health concerns:
https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html

Your argument that there’s no clear evidence of harm just isn’t accurate. Multiple public health bodies and young people themselves are flagging risks.

Questioning whether 12 or 13 year olds need unrestricted access to commercial platforms designed to maximise engagement isn’t “simplistic”. It’s life saving.

Sorry, 2 links copied incorrectly. Here they are again:

The Royal Society for Public Health report:
https://www.rsph.org.uk/our-work/publications/statusofmind/

The World Health Organisation report:
https://www.publicnow.com/view/34A08976EDED495EABC7D8413CD5259A660059BB?utm

Also, the idea that social media is now “integral to life” is part of the concern. It wasn’t integral to childhood 15 years ago. It’s become embedded very quickly, largely through social platforms designed to maximise engagement.

The vast majority of those are alleging harm caused by how social media is used, not from simply using social media per se.

A recent study found absolutely no evidence of a link between time spent on social media and mental health issues in young people.

Social media has been around for almost 20 years now, and yet we have only recently seen such significant problems reported.

My view is that this is due to wider factors (lockdown, less in-person socialising, fewer opportunities, treatment delays) and also the more addictive algorithms on many sites.

You obviously didn’t read those reports and now you’re splitting hairs.

Saying the harm comes from “how it’s used” rather than “social media itself” doesn’t change anything. The way it’s used is shaped by how it’s designed. The algorithms, the endless scroll, the comparison culture, that’s the platform.

One study finding no neat link between social media and mental health doesn’t mean there’s no issue.

You admit algorithms have become more addictive. Exactly. That’s why concerns have ramped up recently. Social media isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago when we were “poking” friends on FB and changing our backgrounds on My Space.

And yes, lockdown and cuts have had an impact for teens. Multiple things can be true at once. Acknowledging wider factors doesn’t mean we shrug our shoulders and put social media in the too hard basket.

It feels like you’re arguing that unless social media is the SOLE CAUSE of poor mental health and universally harmful, it shouldn’t be questioned….

I have no skin in this game as my dc is already an adult. But I'm yet to be convinced that this is the right way forward.

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence coming out of Australia saying that kids are using VPNs etc to bypass the ban. I would be concerned about the potential for more kids to end up using social media in secret, and therefore without appropriate parental monitoring, protections or support etc.

Molly Russell's father has been quite vocal about not supporting the ban, and I find his perspective an interesting one.

So the jury's out for me at the moment. I'm less than convinced that this would actually resolve the problems that teenagers are facing, and it might just make it worse, but I'm open to persuasion.

I am not arguing social media is perfect. What I would like to see is a less addictive algorithm for under 16s, along with much better education on this in schools.

I don’t think just denying teens access (which won’t work in any event) will resolve any issues though.

I’m sorry, but social media companies and schools have had the best part of 20 years to get this right. They haven’t.

We’ve had promises about safer design, better moderation and digital education for years, yet algorithms have become MORE addictive, not less.

So yes, I’m open to trying something new. Let’s try a ban - why not? The constant “it won’t work”, “VPNs”, “there are bigger problems in society” line just feels like a defeatist argument for doing fuck all.

Waiting for social platforms to voluntarily fix themselves and schools to attempt “better education” is naive.

It isn't an argument for doing fuck all, it is a difference of opinion about the best way forward.

Like I said, I have no skin in this game because my dd is an adult and I don't even use social media myself (unless MN counts?!). But having listened to the arguments, I remain unconvinced that a ban is actually the best solution to the problem.

Personally, I do think that the social media companies need to be forced to do more. I think schools probably do enough already, but parents absolutely needto step up and do more to teach their kids about online safety and monitor their activities online.

I can see the appeal of a ban for parents because they think it will make the problem go away. My concern would be that it will just make the problem more hidden, and it will make it harder for kids to speak up about any concerns that they might have about what they have seen.

You say the companies need to be forced to do more. That’s exactly what a ban does. It’s the mechanism that forces action. These are profit driven companies. When child protection clashes with engagement and revenue, we’ve already seen which wins.

How exactly would a ban force the companies to do more? Yes, they would need to introduce some sort of age verification but we know that kids can get around that. Wouldn't a ban actually just let the companies off the hook because they could argue that kids shouldn't be on the site in any case? What would be the remaining incentive for them to do more to moderate the content?

Companies need to be forced to do more
Education for both parents and children needs to be implemented quickly ie the dangers, the impact
Lastly teenagers need to be told that they also are in control of this. I was listening to the radio the other day to a group of YP, they were all simply saying ‘yeah it should be banned’ with no reference fi the fact that they could stop using it or put their own controls in place.

Too many in this country look first to others to sort out issues/problems rather then taking personal responsibility.

Shrug.

Just telling you the reality from somewhere with a social media ban.

I am sure our government will do some polls and research which shows how successful it all is soon.

But those of us who spend at time with teenagers know they are laughing at it.

I don’t support a full ban as WhatsApp is very important for my autistic daughter to stay in touch with friends. Sometimes they sit on video call together, not speaking but “body doubling”.

After years of struggling with friendships she finally found her people, but because they attend a specialist provision her friends are not local. She ain’t able to just go out and meet them.

She doesn’t use any other social media, but a ban that included WhatsApp would have a huge negative impact on her life.

I have a 14y old and 16y old. We’ve had no real issues with SM or phones. Both of them do a lot of sport and mainly watch athletics/netball stuff. DD’s throws coach uses SM videos of elite throwers to show her good technique. It’s helpful that she can slow them right down to watch step by step. DD also runs the athletics club insta account and has massively increased its number of followers.

Interestingly, when the whole ‘School Wars’ thing came out last week they rolled their eyes and declared it a ‘stupid social media thing’.