The Government’s plans to ban under-16s from social media have been welcomed by many parents, but leading Cambridge researchers have warned that the policy alone is unlikely to solve the problems associated with young people’s online lives.
Keir Starmer announced the measures on Monday, saying they would improve online safety and help “give kids their childhood back”. The proposals would prevent under-16s from accessing platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and X.
The Government also plans additional protections for under-18s. These include restrictions on chatbots offering sexualised content, with ministers claiming Britain will become the first country in the world to introduce such a ban. Some livestreaming functions and other online features deemed high-risk would also face restrictions. Ministers hope legislation will pass before Christmas and come into force in spring 2027.
A bold experiment
Among those responding to the announcement was Prof Amy Orben of Cambridge’s MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. She led a major report on the current evidence on impacts of social media on young people, commissioned by DSIT and published in January. Last month she was appointed to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s advisory panel on children’s online well-being. She believes the success of the policy depends largely on what ministers are trying to achieve.
Research from Australia, which introduced a similar social media ban last year, suggests many young people continue to access platforms despite restrictions. As a result, she says, governments should not expect dramatic improvements in mental health or wellbeing in the short term. But she argues the policy could still have value if it changes social norms and attitudes towards social media use among younger age groups.
“A ban is likely to change public perceptions, and make social media use less acceptable in younger age groups,” she says.
Orben sees the move as an acknowledgement that previous attempts to make social media safer have not worked as intended. If platforms cannot be made sufficiently safe for children, restricting access may be justified. She is also disappointed that policymakers have reached that point.
“By banning under 16s, we are constraining their rights to join in with this part of our digital society, because we have lost trust that we can make social media safer for us all at any acceptable rate,” she says.
Are we tackling the right problem?
Many of the concerns raised by the Cambridge researchers centre on the design of social media platforms themselves. Prof Sander van der Linden, director of Cambridge’s Social Decision-Making Lab, welcomes restrictions on activities such as contact with strangers and sexualised conversations with AI chatbots. His concern is that blanket social media bans risk shifting responsibility away from technology companies and onto young people.
Critics argue that the deeper problem lies in platforms designed to maximise engagement through recommendation algorithms, infinite scrolling and other features intended to keep users online for longer.
The BBC’s social media investigations correspondent Marianna Spring has reported that former employees and whistleblowers have described an industry-wide “engagement arms race”, where companies compete for attention by promoting content that provokes strong reactions regardless of the consequences.
Van der Linden agrees with that focus, saying making platforms safer should be a priority. He points to proposals in Canada that would require companies to remove risky features and redesign products rather than simply restricting access. “There just isn’t the evidence base to support bans,” he says.
In an article he wrote for the journal Nature Health in February, he advocated greater investment in digital literacy, helping young people learn how to navigate online environments safely.
The challenge of enforcement
Questions also remain about how the ban would be enforced. The Government has outlined what will be prohibited, but details of how platforms will verify users’ ages and what penalties may apply for breaches have yet to emerge. Experience from Australia suggests enforcement may prove difficult. Studies there indicate that many young people continue to find ways around restrictions, limiting their impact.
Van der Linden also raises concerns about privacy. How age restrictions might be enforced remains unclear, but he warns that stronger verification requirements could lead to pressure for more intrusive forms of identity checking.
Elon Musk, whose social media platform X would be affected by the ban, described the UK as a “police state”, claiming the legislation could be used to track citizens. Supporters of the proposals counter that governments are being forced to intervene because social media companies like his have failed to make their platforms sufficiently safe for young users.
More than a ban
Prof Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Chair of Psychology at Cambridge, believes making the online world safer for children is essential but, like her colleagues, doesn’t believe a ban alone would be enough. Her research focuses on adolescent brain development. In her evidence session in the Commons on Wednesday 10 June, she spoke of how the brain systems associated with reward and emotion mature earlier than those responsible for self-control. This makes it particularly challenging for young people to disengage from platforms specifically designed to capture and hold attention.
“Even as adults, it is really hard to put our phones down,” she points out.
Blakemore also believes social media can provide important benefits. Young people use digital platforms to maintain friendships, learn new information and access communities that may not exist offline. That is one reason why bans can be difficult to enforce. If friends remain online, many teenagers will want to remain connected too.
The researchers agree that no single intervention is likely to solve the problem. Restricting access may form part of the answer, but protecting children online will require a broader approach that addresses both the platforms themselves and the way young people use them. Stronger regulation of technology companies, improved digital education, public health campaigns and greater opportunities for young people to socialise offline are all likely to play a role.
The debate is not confined to the UK. The European Commission is currently developing its proposed Digital Fairness Act, which is expected to tackle addictive and harmful online design practices and may include further protections for children and young people.
As Britain prepares to follow Australia down the path of social media restrictions, policymakers across Europe and beyond will be watching closely. The key question is not whether governments should act, but whether this particular approach succeeds where previous attempts have struggled.
This article is based on a piece by Fred Lewsey for the University of Cambridge, compiled with assistance from AI tools and edited by East Anglia Bylines. Read the original here.
More from East Anglia Bylines
Traditional local journalism is shrinking, news deserts are growing, whilst disinformation, AI content and political polarisation dominate social media.
Join some of the leading voices in independent media for a timely discussion on the future of journalism..
The event will conclude with a live audience Q&A.
