Nine in 10 parents back a social media ban – but could Britain make it work?

Most parents are so concerned about children’s social media use that they back Australian‑style restrictions for under‑16s, according to more than 80,000 responses to a UK government consultation.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said a ban was “definitely on the table” after the survey found nine in 10 parents backed restrictions and were “crying out for help and support”, she told the Sunday Mirror.

This reflects a global movement to protect children, amid growing evidence linking social media use to higher rates of depression, anxiety and lower self-esteem.

What Britain has already done

Before considering a ban, it is worth understanding that the UK has already introduced some of the toughest online safety rules in the world.

The Online Safety Act came into force in July 2025, and Ofcom (Office of Communications) is its regulator. The Act places legal duties on tech companies, not users.

Under the Online Safety Act, platforms are required to block children from accessing harmful content such as pornography, self‑harm and eating disorder material.

They were also required to introduce age verification or estimation tools using photo ID, facial scans or other checks, and to redesign feeds so children are not pushed towards harmful material.

They must also ensure measures are in place to prevent strangers from contacting young users and provide reporting tools.

The scale of change has been significant: around five million extra age checks are now taking place every day on UK sites since the rules came into force.

But the UK model focuses on regulating platforms rather than banning access altogether — and regulators admit enforcement is still uneven, with companies yet to fully comply.

Australia’s world‑first experiment

In December 2025, Australia went further, requiring social media companies to block anyone under 16 from holding accounts.

At a technical level, that is a significant achievement. But early evidence suggests the picture is more complex.

The initial impact was immediate, platforms removed around 4.7 million under‑16 accounts.

Does a ban actually work?

So far, there is no clear evidence that the ban is delivering its core goal — reducing young people’s use of social media or improving wellbeing.

Research suggests up to three‑quarters of teenagers are still accessing social media despite the ban, and usage has fallen only marginally overall

However, there are some reported upsides: 61% of parents say they have seen at least some positive behavioural changes in their children, including more face‑to‑face interaction and improved engagement at home.

But these findings are early and contested, and do not yet constitute proof of improved long‑term outcomes.

How children outwit high-tech rules – and why bans are hard to enforce

The biggest challenge is enforcement, because many children quickly adapt — showing their ingenuity can outsmart high‑tech rules. Three in four teenagers are still using social media despite the ban.

The crafty kids are using fake ages or parents’ accounts, uploading other people’s photos to pass verification checks, and turning to VPNs to bypass location restrictions.

Research has shown that age‑verification systems themselves can be surprisingly easy to trick, even with basic disguises or repeated attempts.

And that is not all: many under-16s are migrating to smaller or less regulated platforms.

The result is what experts call a “whack‑a‑mole” problem: restrict one platform, and users move elsewhere.

What the science actually says

While the effectiveness of bans remains unclear, there is stronger evidence on the impact of social media itself.

Research show heavy use is linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety and lower self‑esteem. There is also evidence it disrupts sleep, particularly when used late at night.

Frequent users are also more likely to engage in or be exposed to risk behaviours such as substance use or harmful content.

But the overall picture is nuanced: effects are generally small at a population level, and moderate use can be associated with better wellbeing than none at all.

In other words, the issue is less social media itself than how it is used — and how platforms are designed.

What can be done to improve things?

The most credible interventions, based on research and policy debates, focus on redesigning platforms that are driven by engagement-maximisation.

Many harms are linked to addictive design features such as infinite scrolling, auto-playing video and the algorithmic amplification of extreme content.

Platforms could create genuinely separate under-16 environments, stripping out public metrics (likes, follower counts), limiting stranger messaging, and default accounts to private.

Daily usage caps for under 16s could include “friction” nudges such as break reminders, forced logouts, and limits on notifications – because “problematic use”, not just use itself, appears to drive harm.

Stronger content moderation could remove harmful content before it spreads, reducing exposure to self-harm material, eating disorder content and risky behaviours.

These approaches target problematic use, which research links most strongly to harm.

Why governments and tech billionaires don’t go further

If the solutions are known, why are they not widely implemented? The answer lies in politics and economics.

Social media and AI are now seen as economic growth sectors and strategic industries in global competition. Donald Trump, for example, has described AI as a “growth engine” and warned against regulation that could slow development.

That tension is not unique to the US: across Western governments, policymakers face the same dilemma – protecting children while avoiding damage to powerful and profitable industries.

The limits of regulation

Even if political will existed, enforcement remains difficult because the internet is global, decentralised and constantly evolving.

To fully block access it would likely require universal identity verification, restrictions on encryption and anonymity, and greater state control over online activity.

Such measures raise concerns around privacy, free speech and surveillance. That is why most governments – including the UK – have opted for risk reduction rather than outright bans.

What happens next

The UK is now at a crossroads. There is clear public demand for stronger action, reflected in the “nine in 10 parents” figure, and growing political pressure to act.

But Australia’s experience suggests a key lesson: a ban is easier to announce than to enforce.

Will the social obligation to protect our children’s mental health and wellbeing be ignored by policymakers and billionaires – or will public pressure force change?

The political and moral divide

Governments are increasingly willing to talk about the risks social media poses to children, but far less willing to slow the growth of the industries behind it.

In the United States, Donald Trump has framed artificial intelligence as an economic “growth engine” and warned that excessive regulation risks slowing innovation.

But Pope Leo has warned of technologies that “exploit attention” and risk undermining children’s development, arguing that digital tools should serve human wellbeing rather than commercial interests.

Ultimately, the debate is not only about whether bans work, but about what governments are prepared to prioritise – economic growth, individual freedom, or the conditions in which children grow up.