UK: A social media ban protects platforms, not children
The UK is rushing to ban social media for children. But CRIN and many other child protection and children’s rights experts have repeatedly warned that this is the wrong approach. Social media bans are a political band-aid; they blame children instead of existing harmful business models.
The United Kingdom has today joined the growing list of countries rushing to ban social media for children.
It is bewildering that the UK government is announcing a blanket ban now. It is doing so after a dramatic Westminster parliamentary rollercoaster, in which a social media ban was rejected three times - and before its own consultation has even been analysed, one which closed under three weeks ago and drew over 116,000 responses.
The main survey asked the public about a social media ban without defining the term ‘social media’ and it used questions that nudged toward particular restrictions. Parents received a simpler, more leading version of that survey. The results of this consultation, therefore, cannot accurately tell us what people actually think. The government’s decision appears to have weighed the evidence by volume, not quality.
The UK’s proposal takes Australia’s ban as a model, which came into effect in December 2025. In the months since, the Australian regulator's own compliance data found that around seven in ten under-16s still held their accounts on banned platforms, there was no notable change in cyberbullying or image-based abuse complaints, and there was a surge in children migrating to alternative unrestricted apps. The ban has, in effect, not set an appropriate path for any other country to follow.
Yet, it is easy to wonder what the government is really trying to achieve. Staggeringly, as early as February, one of the very UK government figures that helped draft the consultation admitted to being sceptical about whether a ban would work. Then, they recognised that the government would back a ban, ‘not least because that is the way the politics is heading’. The rush seems to be oriented around optics rather than what is best for children.
But even a ban that ‘worked’ would be answering the wrong question. The argument we are now having - does the ban work or does it not - risks missing the point. The question is not whether fewer children should be on social media… but what actually keeps them safe? Once that is the test behind the decision, the case for a blanket ban collapses entirely.
Bans start from the end instead of the beginning. They put the burden on children, instead of tackling the harmful business models of social media platforms. In effect, they protect the current way of doing business instead of actually protecting children. Bans are a political band-aid.
A very broad range of child protection and children’s rights experts agree that bans are the wrong approach. The Children’s Coalition for Online Safety recently urged the government to tackle the root causes of harm - tech companies’ business models and design choices.
Some bereaved parents have also joined most of civil society and experts across disciplines to argue that an under-16 social ban will ‘quickly unravel’, ‘let tech companies off the hook’ and make it much more challenging for children who continue to access platforms to get the support they need. They have warned: ‘We will not protect our children if we act on emotion rather than evidence.’
From a rights perspective, too, the answer could not be clearer. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland conducted a full child rights impact assessment on social media bans. They found that the current evidence does not demonstrate that a blanket social media ban for under-16s would be a proportionate, effective or enforceable way to protect children’s rights. Instead, they suggested that restrictions focused on specific harmful features or functionalities may be more effective and rights-compliant than a blanket access ban.
As the Commissioner put it: ‘Blanket restrictions can risk shifting responsibility away from platforms and onto children. A ban does little to address underlying issues such as exploitative algorithms, and business models that drive harmful content and engagement.’
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Australian Human Rights Commission have all warned against blanket bans. Their conclusion is consistent: blocking children from social media is no substitute for making platforms safe in the first place. The source of harm lies in the design and incentives of the platforms. That is where regulation should focus, not punishing children for their use.
More broadly, the rush towards a ban tells us something about how confusedly the government views children. The age of 16 seems to create a cliff edge for children to be thrown into a still-toxic social media environment that subsequent governments did not work hard enough together to effectively regulate.
Recently the UK announced that children will be given the vote from 16 in a recognition that they should ‘have a say in shaping their future’. In considering these two decisions simultaneously, it appears that UK children are supposed to vote after being excluded from online communities where politics happens. Ironically, the government used X to announce this very decision (a platform those affected would no longer be able to access). If we learn from Australia, a ban also means children will have had less access to news. This contradictory approach should ring alarm bells.
What does it mean to give children their rights as citizens to speak and have opinions in a democracy, while limiting the spaces they are able to learn from, or to share those perspectives in?
The UK announcement to ban social media will not protect children. It sidesteps the real problem, allowing social media business models and tech companies to continue as they are.
Children should have safe social media, not exclusion.
This statement is published jointly with Defend Digital Me.
Learn more about social media bans in CRIN's 'Big Debates' digital series.