The UK government is consulting on a possible social media ban for under-16s, reigniting debate over child safety, evidence, and the limits of digital regulation.
 |
| A proposed UK ban on social media for under-16s highlights tensions between public demand for action and unresolved questions about effectiveness and enforcement. Image: CH |
London, United Kingdom — January 20, 2026:
The UK government’s decision to consult on whether social media should be banned for under-16s marks a pivotal moment in the country’s evolving approach to online safety, exposing a sharp divide between political urgency and uncertain evidence.
The consultation, announced alongside plans to strengthen Ofsted’s role in monitoring school phone policies, comes after sustained pressure from Labour MPs and campaigners. The intervention of Esther Ghey, the mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, has given emotional weight to the debate. She argues that social media can deepen isolation for vulnerable children rather than provide support, directly challenging claims that online platforms offer essential community spaces.
Ministers are careful to frame the move as part of a longer journey. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has stressed that the Online Safety Act was “never meant to be the end point”, signalling openness to tougher measures such as robust age verification and limits on features that drive compulsive use. At the same time, schools are being nudged towards becoming “phone-free by default”, extending responsibility for managing digital behaviour into the classroom.
International developments have added momentum. Australia’s under-16s social media ban, introduced in December 2025, has become a touchstone for policymakers, even though its real-world impact is not yet clear. For supporters, it proves such a ban is feasible. For critics, it underlines how little evidence exists about whether age-based prohibitions improve children’s wellbeing.
Politically, the issue has become a point of competition rather than consensus. Conservatives accuse Labour of delay while pledging their own ban if in power, and Liberal Democrats warn that consultation risks becoming a holding pattern. For the government, the challenge is to balance calls for swift action with the risk of overpromising a solution to a deeply complex problem.
Education leaders broadly welcome stronger scrutiny of social media’s influence on children, citing its effects on attention, identity and mental health. However, concerns have been raised about Ofsted “policing” phone use, with school leaders warning against heavy-handed inspections without adequate support. The tension reflects a familiar policy pattern: accountability expanding faster than resources.
Perhaps the most significant uncertainty lies in the research. Academics from Cambridge and Oxford caution that evidence supporting age-based social media bans remains weak. Major child protection charities argue that blanket bans could displace risks rather than reduce them, pushing harmful activity to less visible corners of the internet and creating a false sense of safety.
As the House of Lords prepares to vote on related amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, pressure is mounting on ministers to clarify their direction. Whether the outcome is a full ban, tighter platform regulation, or a hybrid approach, the consultation underscores a broader dilemma facing governments worldwide: public demand for simple, decisive action versus the messy reality of regulating children’s digital lives.