Under modern measures announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday, children under 16 will be banned from using social media platforms in the UK.
“The need for action couldn’t be clearer. Social media is making our children unhappy and unsafe,” Starmer said in post X. “Our children deserve better.”
People under 16 will lose access to social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, and the minimum age for chatbots imitating romantic interactions will be raised to 18. The ban does not apply to WhatsApp and Signal messengers.
As part of the modern measures, which are due to come into force in spring 2027, the UK government will also ban live streaming features and the ability for strangers to contact children under 16 on all platforms.
To curb late-night doom-scrolling, it will also consider introducing a nightly social media curfew for under-18s, with details to be announced in July.
The UK government characterizes the social media ban as an attempt to protect children from extreme and graphic content and other online harms such as bullying. “This is a line in the sand” – Starmer in addition. “Tech giants have had their chance and they have failed, but we are stepping in to protect children, support parents and establish a new normal for future generations.”
Meta, Snap, X and TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment. YouTube spokesman Jay Stoll said: “YouTube is a vital source of information for young people, educators and parents. Blanket bans push children away from such curated, supervised and beneficial experiences towards anonymous, less safe services.”
While British politicians have been considering restricting teenagers’ social media use for many years, the idea has gained popularity since the Australian government imposed a similar ban – the first of its kind – last November. The issue has become surprisingly prominent during recent elections at all levels, many members of parliament tell WIRED, and opposition parties have expressed support for the ban.
The ban in the UK follows: public consultations a process that ran from March to May and received over 100,000 submissions from parents, academics, lobbyists, government bodies and the like. The government announced the modern measures ahead of publishing the full conclusions of the consultation, which it promised to make public by the end of the summer.
A former special adviser to Starmer’s Labor government, who asked not to be named to discuss internal party affairs, says he believes Starmer rushed through the ban in an attempt to boost parliamentary support in anticipation of a challenge to his leadership. “The issue is important for voters and by-elections causing a lot of pressure [the equivalent of a special election in the US] and threats of leadership challenges forced Downing Street to change,” they say.
Preliminary research briefing published by the government suggest that respondents to the consultation were broadly divided into three camps: those who favored a total ban on social media for under-16s; those who advocated banning certain functions; and those who opposed any form of restriction.
Over 90 percent of parents who took part in the consultations they support a total ban. One of most vocal supporters former Esther Ghey, mother of transgender teenager Brianna Ghey, murdered by two schoolmates in 2023. In her statement, Ghey said her daughter’s mental health problems were “significantly exacerbated by the harmful content she viewed online.”
Those who have called for restrictions on allegedly high-risk features, rather than an outright ban, see the ban as too blunt an instrument. “Something absolutely needs to change,” says Rowan Ferguson, policy manager at the Molly Rose Foundation, a suicide prevention charity. “But what we are really concerned about is the ban because the government prefers to rush into solutions that are not supported by the evidence, rather than address the causes of harm.” Ferguson and others have argued that the root of the problem is the addictive design of these products, which a ban does not solve.