Under-16s and social media: Two student perspectives
A ban on social media for under-16s in Australia has sparked a debate about whether the UK should follow in its footsteps. In this blog, two students from Francis Holland Sloane Square have their say.
‘Smartphones are a public health emergency’ – Ginevra
Medical professionals, intelligence officers, police officers, teachers and hundreds of thousands of parents have all publicly said social media should be banned for under-16s. The Children’s Commissioner Report from August 2025 begins like this:
“This report is among the most sobering my office has ever published. It paints a stark picture of what childhood looks like in 2025 with an online world that is, in many ways, completely unfit for children… This report should be read as a snapshot of what rock bottom looks like.”
Violent, extreme, degrading and illegal pornography is being shown to children without them even looking for it (Children’s Commissioner’s Report, 2025). Meta’s own research shows 100,000 children a day are sexually harassed on its platform (The Guardian, April 2024).
Social media companies employed neuropsychologists – who study and then mimic variable ratio rewards from slot machines – to design these platforms to maximise time on device. Their own studies show that the platforms are addictive (metasinternalresearch.org). Instagram’s boss, Adam Mosseri, faced questioning about the impact of his platform on minors; he said 16 hours of daily use is not addiction (BBC News, February 2026).
Social media apps are free to download, so how are the companies worth billions of dollars? They make their money by showing us adverts. The more time we spend on the apps, the more adverts we can be shown. In other words, the platforms make money by selling our time and attention to companies who want to show us adverts. And they know which adverts to send us because they spy on everything we do.
Many of the people who run these tech companies do not let their own children use their products (Jonathan Haidt lecture). The hypocrisy!
We impose bans on children smoking, drinking alcohol, gambling, and accessing porn. We must do the same for social media.
Big Tech does not want a ban as it would hit revenue. They want to pass responsibility to parents. There are more tech lobbyists in the European Parliament than MEPs (New York Times, February 2026). Laws hold companies accountable and set norms. We know some kids smoke, but we would not abandon age restrictions on tobacco.
The physical and emotional consequences of smartphones and social media affect every part of a child’s life. There was a clear spike in suicides, psychiatric emergencies, and self-harm among teens in 2012, which coincides with the introduction of smartphone and social media apps.
The earlier the smartphone adoption, the stronger the association with poor mental health. 500 children a day in England are referred to mental health services for anxiety. Each extra hour on social media raises the odds of behaviours like binge eating and experiencing distress around eating and is linked to early experimentation with illicit drugs (Dane, Bhatia, 2023; Ganson et al 2024; Nagata et al 2024). The growth of self-harm incidents in girls mirrors the growth of smartphone use.
Screens and social media are also directly linked to children sleeping less, our ability to focus and concentrate, lower lecture retention, an increase in ADHD-like symptoms, obesity, eyesight damage, musculoskeletal problems and being mugged for our phones.
So, with this mountain of evidence, let’s not entrust our children to Zuckerberg or Musk or any of the other Big Tech titans. No thanks to these addictive-by-design tools. Let common sense prevail and ban social media for under-16s.
________________________________________________________
‘Blanket bans do not work’ – Ophelia
Calls to ban social media for under-16s are becoming more prominent, particularly amongst parents and schools. While the arguments supporting a ban may seem compelling, the evidence of the benefits is lacking. In practice, a ban may do the opposite of what it is seeking to achieve – damaging rather than protecting young people.
Quite simply, blanket bans do not work.
One of the biggest problems with banning social media is enforceability. Similar restrictions exist for behaviours such as buying cigarettes, where the law exists but is hardly effective.
It is no wonder that older generations ask younger people how to work their phone. Young people are digitally literate and can easily get round restrictions by altering dates of birth to set up accounts, using VPNs, or accessing social media through friends or older siblings’ devices.
Then come the consequences of breaching a social media ban. If using social media under 16 became a criminal offence, would we really want large numbers of young people facing criminal records? This could have long-term consequences for their futures while placing unnecessary pressure on police and legal systems. If the punishment were instead a fine, it would likely be paid by the parents rather than the young person, weakening the effectiveness of the deterrent.
Most significantly, blanket bans assume governments know what is best for young people. However, parents understand their children’s needs and circumstances far greater than a law that treats every teenager the same. Extensive government intervention creates a ‘nanny state’ and raises legal implications about freedom of speech and personal choice.
Arguably, the dangers of banning social media are often overlooked.
Banning social media can create a false sense of security for parents while pushing children ‘underground’ into unsafe spaces, such as poorly safeguarded and less regulated alternatives online.
If young people continued to use mainstream platforms secretly, they might be less willing to speak to adults about issues such as online bullying or harmful content for fear of punishment for breaking the rules, leaving them more isolated and at greater risk than before.
Youth charities have also raised considerable concerns about children living in abusive or neglectful households. For some, social media raises awareness that their situation is not normal and represents a lifeline to seek help. ReachOut found that 73% of young social media users access social media for mental health support or advice.
Research shows that 70-80% of lifelong habits are formed in the mid teenage years. Learning to navigate digital spaces responsibly during this period helps young people develop self-regulation and digital awareness. Removing access may prevent them from developing these skills.
Mainstream media is not where most young people get their information from. Modern communication takes place online. Preventing young people from accessing social media may isolate them from conversations, friendships, and opportunities to develop important social skills.
Young people also use social media to stay informed about current events, showcase their talents and connect with others with similar interests.
For some individuals or groups like LGBTQIA+, social media provides a supportive space. 31% of young people exploring their identity said they found support online they could not find offline. These networks help build confidence and improve social skills, which can lead to better job opportunities in the future.
A social media ban for under-16s effectively bans the consumer, rather than the supplier. It fails to address the core issues of harmful business models and unsafe algorithmic design – letting the creators and suppliers of these platforms ‘off the hook’.
Surely the answer to safe social media usage lies in education for young people, rather than prohibition.