In December 2025 the Australian Government introduced a ban on social media for the under 16s in order to protect them from the minefield that it has become. In Britain there are moves afoot for a similar ban to be placed. The arguments for and against such a ban are powerful and it is difficult to draw a definitive line.

Facebook, X, SnapChat and TikTok seem to be the most likely targets but it may be as far reaching to include WhatsApp and YouTube.

I was watching my local news (Look North: East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire) last night and it was the number one story and as part of the piece they invited teenagers to comment - each one was vehemently against such a ban and argued that teenagers would not be able to develop the skills to deal with social media if it is suddenly dropped on them at the age of 16 with no prior warning. They did all argue that some kind of filters were necessary for smaller children though.

The primary reason for such a ban can be summarised as the safeguarding argument, which first and foremost is to protect a young person's mental health. It has widely been documented that nowadays young people are more sensitive to anxiety, depression, body‑image issues, and addictive behaviour and furthermore the EU has reported that 25% of minors show “problematic” smartphone use, suggesting compulsive patterns similar to addiction. Bullying is an age old problem, but has been exacerbated by the expansion of social media. In the past young people who were subjected to bullying at least has some respite at home, but nowadays young people live all their waking hours with their smart phones at hand. Furthermore because of the way that social media works it opens too many doors to grooming and exposure to harmful and extremist content.

The way I understand it, the more you watch something the more the algorithm shows you and this is often based on the number of seconds you watch before scrolling on. This is fine if you are watching cat videos, but if you are watching misogynistic content for example the algorithm will show you  more similar stuff. This has been one of the factors in the rise of so-called toxic masculinity.

Another layer of protection regards privacy. Very simply minors cannot meaningfully consent or should be allowed to consent to data harvesting, while at the same time platforms collect behavioural data that can follow minors into adulthood. You cannot consent to something you don't have the right to consent to - imagine the furore if an under-aged person consented to sexual activity with an adult!

That is not a consent that can be given regardless of what the young person thinks and it is called grooming!

Moving further on into the platforms themselves, such a ban would also reduce a young person's exposure to manipulative design, namely engagement‑based recommender algorithms, which is usually dressed up as rewards and incentives which are especially harmful to minors.

Finally, in terms of enforcement, a strict age ban will be easier to enforce than partial restrictions and frankly the big social media companies were told so many times to clean their act up, something they failed to do, that now legislation will demand they take action. The onus will be on them to now clean up and comply.

There are of course many counterarguments beginning where I just left off. Such a ban could be difficult to enforce, especially while age verification remains notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, children are smarter than we give them credit for and they can often find workarounds by which they can easily bypass bans using VPNs, fake birthdays, or even their parents’ accounts.

As already highlighted in my comment about the teenagers on Look North the truth is social media is here to stay and a major part of modern social life, and a blanket ban may isolate teens or limit their ability to participate in digital culture and thus harm their future development. The fact is the future is digital and our young people need to be digitally literate or risk being left behind, thus any prohibition is likely to do more harm than good. Therefore the real approach, so those who oppose such bans is to argue that teaching young people safe online behaviour has to be the way forward rather than banning access.

Another counter argument is that where there is a ban it is human nature to search out another space and thus it is conceivable that young people will inevitably look in unregulated spaces which can include encrypted apps, underground or fringe platforms and less moderated spaces which contrary to the intent could actually increase exposure to harm.

Impacts are not always felt equally. Wealthier families may circumvent bans more easily and children in difficult home environments may lose access to supportive online communities creating potential schisms that will most acutely be felt in the classroom and school yard.

Finally libertarians will always argue that such measures represent excessive state intervention and are a serious overreach and an extension of Government Control that may well set a precedent for broader digital restrictions.

When it comes down to it we probably need a sensible and pragmatic approach without a complete blanket ban. There needs to be a balance that resolves the conflict between the need for protection and participation. At the end of the day governments are reacting to real dangers; mental health crises, algorithmic manipulation, and unsafe online environments, but they need to recognise that bans risk oversimplifying a complex problem and may not work in practice. 

What would be better would be to increase control over social media (and this does mean getting Zuckerberg and Musk etc onboard) to ensure that social media providers utilise age‑appropriate design codes, do away with infinite scroll and similar mechanisms that keep people hooked and provide algorithmic transparency with much better moderation (i.e. human and contactable) than what is the current practice. Then for the end-users there needs to be an increase in digital literacy which has to include a large element of risk awareness and this could be further backed up by effective parental tools.

It is a difficult and complex issue to unpack but I do believe that is the way forward especially when we remember something becomes more desirable when it becomes forbidden fruit.

As always stay safe and well my friends.