Technology experts, business leaders and online safety campaigners are rolling out a sceptical reaction to the UK Government’s proposed ban on under-16s from using mainstream social media, while ministers have been standing firm on the need for the policy.
The new rules will mean platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X and YouTube will have to block access to their service for under-16s. Exceptions will include messaging apps like WhatsApp and the YouTube Kids app. The changes, which are likely to come into force in spring 2027, will be policed with fines of potentially millions of pounds for businesses that do not stick to them.
The policy is similar to steps taken in Australia, and follows a government consultation where approximately 9 out of 10 parents were in favour of the ban. Ministers say the change is necessary given growing concerns about children being exposed to harmful content, design elements that cause addiction and the amount of time they spend online.
But a range of responses from digital safety and regulatory communities indicates significant differences of opinion on the prospect of the plan working in practice.
Free-market think tank critics say teens will just get around restrictions with VPNs or simply by lying about their age. One senior commentator said it was unrealistic and could further increase social isolation for young people, claiming parents already have means to control children’s use of the internet.
Others in the online safety field were more nuanced, but raised doubts about the ability of age restrictions to significantly limit harm. Regulatory experts advised the UK to take heed from Australia where enforcement problems have cropped up already. They pointed out that parents’ concerns are legitimate, but an outright prohibition becomes problematic in meeting its goals.
There are some industry voices who are pleased with the direction of travel but stress that enforcement will be critical on the tech companies. Digital age-verification tools are now able to enable more effective enforcement, age-verification providers note, but the effectiveness of this policy will rely on wider accountability measures, and parental education and engagement on safe online behaviour.
More fundamental objections have been raised by fact-checking organisations, which say the policy doesn’t tackle the way that social media platforms are designed. They argue that with attention only to access, there is a failure to consider algorithmic amplification, misinformation and addictive engagement features. Others note that this may be in conflict with government’s broader plans to introduce expanded democratic participation for 16 and 17 year olds.
The government has insisted that “reasonable steps” must be taken to implement the age restrictions and platforms will be held liable for failing to do so, even as the age restrictions have been criticised. Additional limitations, such as potentially curbing addictive scrolling features and curfews for teens, will likely be announced in the coming months.
Ministers are billing this as a ‘groundbreaking’ child protection policy, but industry response indicates a more complex situation: age controls are easy to implement in principle but less clear in practice as to whether they will meaningfully impact child online experiences.
