Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think banning social media for under-16s is a good idea?

360 replies

LizardLore · 15/06/2026 08:18

Just being announced now - social media banned for under-16s.

My instinct is it’s great, but I am interested in other views. My kids are very small so not an issue here yet.

YABU - the ban is bad
YANBU - the ban is good

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
Backedoffhackedoff · 15/06/2026 09:38

Sartre · 15/06/2026 09:37

Parents will just do the facial ID for their kids if that’s the case.

That’s fine. As I say, parents can choose to break the law. I could choose to break any law I want right now, none of them are completely preventive

pinkpostitnote · 15/06/2026 09:39

“The internet is a night club and phones a class A drug” is a phrase recently shared with me.

I think this is true.

(mn is definitely Gin. Gin)

kirinm · 15/06/2026 09:41

This is a good thing. Like others, not sure how it is enforced but getting kids off phones can be nothing but positive. Our school has banned phones now (not sure who was taking phones to school as it’s a primary but I want the ban).

Danhausenrocks · 15/06/2026 09:42

Parents will just do the facial ID for their kids if that’s the case.

And that;s up to them. But for every 1 parent who does that, there will probably be 3-4 parents who are more willing to say "no" - so if that means that a larger proportion of children stay off the social media, then thats a good thing.

As I say, for me, the biggest thing is the peer pressure "but everyone is on it, why can't i?" and I think this ban eliminates that level of peer pressure.

For my 11 year old, she won't know any different as she's not interested. Shes only allowed to use my YouTube account (so I can monitor what shes watching) and scroll instagram on my phone (again, so i'm in control of her algorithm). But I appreciate taking it away from those who have already had it may be harder.

shinypen · 15/06/2026 09:42

Backedoffhackedoff · 15/06/2026 09:36

”Will all over-16's now have to provide ID online?”

no it won’t be that old skool. Facial recognition can tell your age fairly accurately.

exit- sorry didn’t quote I was replying to @shinypen

Edited

Facial recognition is another way you can be tracked. I'm not (normally) a paranoid anti-tech type(!). But I don't see this as a good thing. We simply don't know what AI will balloon into in the future, it gives much too much control to parties we don't have any control over. You might think we're taking back control from tech companies, but I think it'll be the exact opposite.

You don't want a picture of your child on the internet? Now, tech companies (and the men behind them) are able to recognise your child.... not to mention what would happen if the systems were hacked.

EasternStandard · 15/06/2026 09:42

Backedoffhackedoff · 15/06/2026 09:36

”Will all over-16's now have to provide ID online?”

no it won’t be that old skool. Facial recognition can tell your age fairly accurately.

exit- sorry didn’t quote I was replying to @shinypen

Edited

Facial recognition for everyone? It feels like a driver for gaining access to that.

I have a rules compliant dd and I would have said no anyway but this makes it easier. But the ID drive means I have mixed feelings on it.

YourKonstantine · 15/06/2026 09:42

I can’t believe anyone thinks it’s a bad idea. Studies consistently show social media is bad for human mental health.

TheJuryIsOut · 15/06/2026 09:43

I do agree it's a good thing, I'm not sure what I'll do about my 14yo who uses Snapchat to communicate with all her friends, I wouldn't want to isolate her. It will be much easier to enforce with my younger child who hasn't got any SM yet.

Sartre · 15/06/2026 09:44

YourKonstantine · 15/06/2026 09:42

I can’t believe anyone thinks it’s a bad idea. Studies consistently show social media is bad for human mental health.

It’s bad for two reasons in my view.
One) it removes parental autonomy. It should be up to us to decide whether our children access these apps, not the government.
Two) if they’re tracking it through government ID’s, it is essentially backdoor digital ID.

Backedoffhackedoff · 15/06/2026 09:44

shinypen · 15/06/2026 09:42

Facial recognition is another way you can be tracked. I'm not (normally) a paranoid anti-tech type(!). But I don't see this as a good thing. We simply don't know what AI will balloon into in the future, it gives much too much control to parties we don't have any control over. You might think we're taking back control from tech companies, but I think it'll be the exact opposite.

You don't want a picture of your child on the internet? Now, tech companies (and the men behind them) are able to recognise your child.... not to mention what would happen if the systems were hacked.

Edited

Facial recognition has been around for a decade. You can chose not to use it if you like, I use it for everything.

you don’t have a right to social media, if you don’t want to abide by their rules you can’t access it.

also lol at someone being paranoid about facial recognition but desperate to use social media 😂

Inmyuggs · 15/06/2026 09:44

anon199900 · 15/06/2026 08:25

I think it’s a brilliant idea as a mother of an 13, 11 and 8 year old. I hope they have a better way to police it than Australia.

How does it work when it is banned?
Kids make up accounts with dud birth dates?

LizardLore · 15/06/2026 09:44

shinypen · 15/06/2026 09:42

Facial recognition is another way you can be tracked. I'm not (normally) a paranoid anti-tech type(!). But I don't see this as a good thing. We simply don't know what AI will balloon into in the future, it gives much too much control to parties we don't have any control over. You might think we're taking back control from tech companies, but I think it'll be the exact opposite.

You don't want a picture of your child on the internet? Now, tech companies (and the men behind them) are able to recognise your child.... not to mention what would happen if the systems were hacked.

Edited

This is the argument against that I’m most sympathetic to. It does concern me.

At the same time I’m surely being tracked every which way already so has that ship already sailed? I don’t know.

OP posts:
MNLurker1345 · 15/06/2026 09:45

Backedoffhackedoff · 15/06/2026 09:38

That’s fine. As I say, parents can choose to break the law. I could choose to break any law I want right now, none of them are completely preventive

My DGD, who at 15 has never been on SM, says
her friends will just lie about their age or their parents will do face recognition for them. Quite blasé about it. But I had to have the conversation with her about breaking the law.

Yes, there will always be many that flout the law but conscientious young people, who have these conversations with family and at school, will hopefully abide by the law.

shinypen · 15/06/2026 09:48

LizardLore · 15/06/2026 09:44

This is the argument against that I’m most sympathetic to. It does concern me.

At the same time I’m surely being tracked every which way already so has that ship already sailed? I don’t know.

"The ship has sailed" argument means everyone is complacent and allow it to get worse. It can get VERY worse....

Backedoffhackedoff · 15/06/2026 09:48

MNLurker1345 · 15/06/2026 09:45

My DGD, who at 15 has never been on SM, says
her friends will just lie about their age or their parents will do face recognition for them. Quite blasé about it. But I had to have the conversation with her about breaking the law.

Yes, there will always be many that flout the law but conscientious young people, who have these conversations with family and at school, will hopefully abide by the law.

Thing is. Since they don’t spend 24/7 with their parents the parents doing facial recognition is going to hugely reduce their social media use anyway. Most teens would only be able to access their parents face 5pm- 10pm or weeeknds

Komints · 15/06/2026 09:50

Facial recognition has been on phones for over a decade. Google, Apple, META know some of us better than we know ourselves. This would be a much more cautious and responsible use of the (currently existing and already widely used) tech than many other cases.

Formerdarkhorse · 15/06/2026 09:52

I agree it’s a good thing to ban social media- i couldn’t get on board the ‘smartphone-free childhood’ initiative, it was focusing on the wrong aspects of the issue. Doom scrolling and social media are the problems, not having a phone for independence, making payments etc.

I have a DC finishing primary at the moment, we allow limited access to WhatsApp and YouTube… mainly because most of the class have it and I felt it was better to learn to use it with guidance and supervision, eg dealing with comments etc, as there was going to be exposure hanging out with friends regardless so it was better to be educated in how it works.
If it’s going to be banned, that sets a clear boundary and it will at least be harder to access.

However, adults now need to also look at how their own phone addictions over the last 5 years

CitizenofMoronia · 15/06/2026 09:54

Its digital ID via the backdoor, every 16yr old will be signing up for digital ID so they can use social media.

Changingplace · 15/06/2026 09:55

Sartre · 15/06/2026 09:20

Personally think it’s out of order. It’s removing the autonomy from parents to make parental decisions about their own children. It should be up to me to decide whether my 14 and 15 year old DD’s use social media. As it goes, I have never allowed TikTok and I monitor Instagram and Snapchat - they also have private accounts. They are not allowed to access apps without my permission through parental settings on Apple. I also implement screen time. A blanket ban is ludicrous at that age. I understand for under 13s but not 13-15 year olds who communicate with one another largely through these apps.

How is it different to alcohol or cigarettes having legal age restrictions?

YourKonstantine · 15/06/2026 09:55

Sartre · 15/06/2026 09:44

It’s bad for two reasons in my view.
One) it removes parental autonomy. It should be up to us to decide whether our children access these apps, not the government.
Two) if they’re tracking it through government ID’s, it is essentially backdoor digital ID.

But parents aren’t appropriately educated on the risks and harms of SM, they aren’t child development psychologists blah blah and a large number don’t give a shit so long as their kids leave them alone. Sadly any idiot can reproduce and I don’t agree with parental astronomy when people aren’t educated.

my eldest is 14 and a large number of kids (in a nice area, at a nice school) have been drinking, vaping, bunking since the end of y7. Their parents allow them on their phones until midnight every night (no doubt scrolling TikTok) - tell me how that’s healthy? Unfortunately you’re coming at it as a parent who sounds like they’ve done some research; the vast majority have not either due to ignorance, being addicted to their phones themselves or lack of time to do the work.

Changingplace · 15/06/2026 09:57

MNLurker1345 · 15/06/2026 09:45

My DGD, who at 15 has never been on SM, says
her friends will just lie about their age or their parents will do face recognition for them. Quite blasé about it. But I had to have the conversation with her about breaking the law.

Yes, there will always be many that flout the law but conscientious young people, who have these conversations with family and at school, will hopefully abide by the law.

In the same way, some kids have always found ways to buy alcohol, cigarettes or drugs, doesn’t mean those things are appropriate for under 16s/18s (or, on drugs, anyone!)

Sartre · 15/06/2026 09:58

Changingplace · 15/06/2026 09:55

How is it different to alcohol or cigarettes having legal age restrictions?

They’re legal drugs and they kill millions of people annually so a tad different. Yes you’re going to highlight the minute number of incredibly sad stories linked to SM bullying but it is a tiny proportion of teens who use it. Completely different to drugs.

kirinm · 15/06/2026 09:58

Sartre · 15/06/2026 09:37

This is the worrying part for me too, I think it’s like a backdoor digital ID.

Also banning YouTube makes zilch sense. My DS’s favourite things to watch on there are things like Tom Scott and Map Men. He also used it for GCSE revision.

YouTube is awful. Horrible adult content is mixed in with what is meant to be ‘kids YouTube’. I’m so pleased there’s going to be a ban.

Surely there are other ways a child can revise?

Needmorelego · 15/06/2026 09:59

I don't understand why YouTube is being classed as social media.
My daughter uses it to watch specific broadcasts/programmes the same as using a TV.

MNLurker1345 · 15/06/2026 10:00

Changingplace · 15/06/2026 09:57

In the same way, some kids have always found ways to buy alcohol, cigarettes or drugs, doesn’t mean those things are appropriate for under 16s/18s (or, on drugs, anyone!)

But I would guess that more underage/ young people don’t buy alcohol, drugs and vapes than do. A significant minority perhaps?

Swipe left for the next trending thread