As a parent and chair of an inner-city primary school governing body, I see first-hand the concerns that sit behind Keir Starmer’s announcement of a social media ban for under-16s.
Parents are worried. Teachers are worried. And young people themselves increasingly talk about anxiety, online bullying, unrealistic expectations, addictive behaviours and the constant pressure created by life lived through a screen.
The harms are real, and government should not ignore them. But recognising a problem and choosing the right solution are not the same thing.
The proposed ban feels like another example of politics reaching for the most visible answer rather than the most effective one. In defending the policy, the Prime Minister argued that saying children will simply get around a social media ban is like opposing alcohol laws because underage drinking still happens.
On the surface, this sounds persuasive. But the comparison breaks down upon closer consideration.
Comparing alcohol laws to a social media ban is like comparing apples and oranges
Alcohol regulation does not rely solely on age restrictions. Society regulates the entire system around it: advertising, licensing, packaging, sales, pricing and enforcement. The burden is not placed solely on the child, but on the industry.
Yet when it comes to social media, the focus appears far more heavily weighted towards restricting access for young people than fundamentally reshaping the behaviour of the platforms themselves.
That feels like the wrong way around. The issue is not social media itself, but the peripherals: the features, algorithms and commercial incentives designed to maximise engagement and hold attention for as long as possible.
Infinite scrolling, algorithmic amplification, push notifications, content engineered for emotional reaction — these are not accidents. These are design choices.
If government genuinely believes social media is causing harm on this scale, why is the debate focused primarily on whether a fourteen-year-old can access a platform, rather than whether the platform itself should operate differently?
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
Practical concerns must be considered
It is highly likely that digitally literate young people will find ways around platform-specific bans. VPNs, alternative apps and emerging platforms are already part of their online reality.
The likely outcome is not disappearance, but displacement into less regulated spaces that are harder for parents, schools and regulators to monitor.
That does not make the concerns any less real. Nor does it mean government should do nothing. But there is a difference between acting and solving.
Australia’s ban — brand new – cannot be used as proof of success
The government points to Australia as evidence that a social media ban for under-16s can work. Yet Australia’s legislation is still new and remains one of the most significant social policy experiments anywhere in the world.
The truth is that we do not yet know its long-term impact.
Will it reduce anxiety? Improve mental health outcomes? Reduce exposure to harmful content? Or simply push young people to find potentially more dangerous alternatives to access content?
At this stage, nobody can say with confidence. That raises a straightforward question: If Australia is effectively running the world’s largest live experiment in social media restriction, why is the UK rushing to follow before the evidence is in?
Why the rush?
The concerns around social media are not new. They have been raised for more than a decade by parents, teachers, researchers and young people themselves.
So why has this suddenly become an urgent legislative priority now?
Perhaps public concern has reached a tipping point. Perhaps international momentum, including Australia’s move, has accelerated decision-making. Perhaps there is a belief that being seen to act decisively on children’s safety carries little political risk.
This is not an argument for inaction. As a parent and school governor, I would be deeply concerned if government ignored the evidence of harm that many children experience online. It is an argument for evidence-based policymaking and for addressing the causes of those harms rather than simply restricting access.
Too often, modern politics follows a familiar pattern: a problem emerges, public concern grows, pressure builds, and the most visible intervention becomes politically attractive. Evidence follows later. The risk is that government becomes more focused on demonstrating action than understanding impact.
A multi-faceted issue requires caution and evidence-based decision making
Whatever the explanation, we should be cautious whenever complex social problems are reduced to a single legislative switch, because most of the pressures facing young people are interconnected: mental health, loneliness, bullying, educational stress, family finances, community decline and the changing nature of childhood itself.
Social media can amplify those pressures, but it did not create them. A ban may become part of the solution. It may even prove necessary. But before the UK follows Australia’s lead, it is reasonable to ask a simple question: Are we acting on evidence – or on urgency?
Thoughtful, holistic debate needed over knee-jerk legislation
The danger is that policy begins to drift towards the most visible intervention rather than the most effective one. Voices such as Ian Russell’s have consistently reminded us that the real issue is not simply access to social media, but the design of the systems themselves that shape what young people see and how it affects them.
That is a harder conversation than banning access for under-16s, but it is also the one we cannot avoid.
As a parent, and as someone involved in the governance of a school serving communities facing many of the social and economic challenges that shape children’s lives, I want young people to be safe online. Most parents do.
Safety will not come, however, from assuming we can rewind childhood to a pre-digital age. Social media exists: Are we prepared to regulate it properly? That is where the debate should begin.
