On Monday 15 June, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that social media would be banned for all children under 16.
The decision comes merely two weeks after the Government's public consultation on the topic closed. The aim is to protect young people from the addictive platforms that host harmful content.
His speech at Downing Street gave little in way of details on how the ban would be enforced, with Starmer suggesting the ban would most likely come into effect next spring.
The ban follows the lead of countries like Australia.
Experts from across City St George's, University of London reacted to the news.
"All sticks, no carrots," says Dr Elinor Carmi
Dr Carmi is a Senior Lecturer in Data Politics & Data Justice at City St George’s, University of London, who researches digital rights and literacies. He recent research includes a project funded by the Google Academy on responsible AI open educational resources. She said:
Just like other bans – from alcohol, tobacco and abortions – people will always find ways to do those things but just in unsafe and hidden ways.
In the early 1990s, my parents tried to restrict my internet consumption. To bypass that I just waited for them to fall asleep and put a pillow on the router so they would not hear that I was on the internet.
When you make something forbidden, especially for kids and teens, it makes it even more appealing.
The answer is more restrictions on platforms and education, but of course this would require governments to be tough on platforms. That's what many governments have been avoiding for years as they collaborate with social media platforms and AI companies on more projects.
The easy way out is to punish kids and teens, who get their information online and now will have to use creative ways to get their information.
It won't work and puts them at risk.
The government offers only sticks and no carrots, no additional funding to youth clubs or libraries, just restrictions.
It's not the way to go and just like Australia is failing with this, we will see similar results here.
"A disingenous consultation," says Professor Carrie-Anne Myers
Professor Myers is the Director of the Centre for Online Safety, Safeguarding, Privacy and Identity (COSPI) at City St George’s. She has carried out research on cyberbullying among UK children for Ofcom, among other research. She said:
The Government consultation process was disingenuous.
It closed two weeks ago with over 80,000 submissions.
Have submissions really been reviewed in a two-week period, or is this a political game play, with the Makerfield by-election around the corner?
This sort of populist announcement panders to some sort of nostalgia to the ‘good old days’ which is nonsense.
We live in a tech-enabled age and not teaching everyone to be responsible online is frankly platitudinous.
Banning something always sounds like it is going to fix a problem, but it is rarely effective.
If the Government really is committed to protecting children and young people from online harms, it had its landmark Online Safety Act to do just that.
"A politically convenient move," says Dr Yusuf Oc
Dr Oc is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing, whose research focuses on digital marketing, mobile marketing, big data, and data analytics, with a particular interest in improving marketing efficiency and exploring the use of data and technology. He said:
The UK government's decision to ban social media for under-16s is a politically convenient move dressed up as a child safety policy.
What we are seeing here is a classic case of confirmation bias. The government is selectively seeking out evidence that supports a position it has already decided to take, while ignoring the substantial body of research pointing in a different direction. Opinions on this issue remain deeply divided, and some of the most prominent voices in child development, digital literacy, and online safety argue that a blanket ban is simply not the right answer.
Rather than taking the harder but more effective route of forcing social media companies to clean up their algorithms, improve content moderation, and create genuinely safer environments for young users, the government has reached for the easiest lever available: a blanket ban.
This is populist policymaking designed to satisfy a vocal group of parents and political supporters, not a carefully evidenced response to a complex problem.
When I spoke to my own children about this, they pointed out that their teachers regularly share YouTube videos in class as part of their lessons. The Government's own consultation recognised the need to examine the most effective ways to ensure children have healthy online experiences, yet a blanket ban does nothing to address the quality of content children are already exposed to through educational and family settings.
The research is clear: what children need is better digital literacy education, stronger regulatory scrutiny of the platforms themselves, and smarter content governance. A ban is the easiest headline to write. It is not the right answer.
"The ban misdiagnoses responsibility," says Dr Devina Sarwatay
Dr Sarwatay is a Presidential Fellow at City St George's, whose research focuses on digital cultures, young people's media practices and digital citizenship. She said:
The proposed blanket ban for under-16s is a fundamentally flawed approach. It risks oversimplifying a complex problem and misdiagnosing where responsibility lies.
A central issue is that this policy targets access rather than infrastructure. The evidence we have consistently points to platform design and business models as the root causes of harm—systems that prioritise engagement at the expense of safety, something highlighted in the Prime Minister's statement as well. By focusing on banning young people, the policy effectively shifts responsibility away from technology companies and onto users themselves. In that sense, it risks becoming more of a symbolic intervention than a structural solution.
There are also significant concerns about effectiveness. International examples suggest these kinds of bans are difficult to enforce and relatively easy to circumvent, particularly for digitally literate young people. This creates a likely “cat-and-mouse” dynamic, where young people move to less regulated or more opaque platforms, potentially increasing rather than reducing risk.
Equally important are the unintended social consequences. Social media is not simply a site of harm...it is also a critical space for connection, identity formation, and belonging. This is particularly true for marginalised young people, including LGBTQ+, disabled, or neurodivergent communities, for whom online spaces can provide forms of support that are not always available offline. Removing access altogether risks deepening existing inequalities.
Our own research at City St George’s reinforces this point. Nearly two-thirds of students we surveyed opposed a ban, with many arguing that it unfairly penalises young people rather than holding platforms accountable. There were also strong concerns around age verification and enforcement, including the potential expansion of surveillance and data collection infrastructures, which could introduce new risks around privacy and trust.
More broadly, the policy raises important questions about young people’s digital rights. A blanket ban represents a highly restrictive intervention into how young people access information, participate in public life, and build social networks. Yet young people themselves appear to have had limited meaningful involvement in shaping these proposals, despite being the group most affected.
Looking ahead, I think the real test will be whether this policy genuinely drives platform reform. Without enforceable changes to design practices such as limits on algorithmic amplification, safer default settings, and meaningful accountability mechanisms, there is a risk that the underlying causes of harm remain intact.
In that sense, the danger is that this becomes a high-visibility policy that is politically effective, but practically limited. A more effective approach would centre on regulating platform architectures, strengthening digital literacy, and co-designing solutions with young people themselves.
