To Ban or Not to Ban Social Media for Children – That Is Not the Question

Governments everywhere are wrestling with the same uncomfortable truth: social media is shaping children’s lives in ways we barely understand and certainly cannot control. Australia’s decision to ban under‑16s from using social media has reignited the debate here in the UK. The House of Lords has already voted through an amendment to the Schools Bill supporting a ban, while the Government prefers to consult before deciding what to do.

The appeal of a ban is obvious. Parents are exhausted by the constant battle over screen time. Teachers are overwhelmed by the fallout, from online bullying to sleep‑deprived pupils. Mental health professionals warn that algorithm‑driven feeds expose children to content they are not emotionally equipped to handle. A ban promises clarity. It draws a bright line where today there is only confusion. It forces platforms to take responsibility for age‑assurance. It gives parents a rule they can point to. And it signals, loudly, that children’s wellbeing matters more than Silicon Valley’s engagement metrics. Australia’s early experience shows that such a ban can be implemented without the societal meltdown some predicted. No riots, no mass non‑compliance, no collapse in communication! For governments under pressure to “do something”, that matters.

But the risks are real, and easy to ignore. Social media is not just a playground of distraction. For many young people, it is a lifeline. Children in care, LGBTQ+ teenagers, young people in rural areas, and those who struggle to make friends offline often rely on digital spaces for community, identity and support. Remove that, and you risk deepening isolation, not alleviating it.

This is why many children’s charities, including those working with the most vulnerable, have not backed a ban. They argue that cutting off young people from online spaces removes vital peer support, silences marginalised voices and ignores the reality that offline services have been hollowed out. Their concerns are rooted in daily experience. During the Covid-19 lockdowns, when I was at Barnardo’s, digital connection was essential for staying in touch with the children who needed us most.

There is also the uncomfortable reality that bans are easy to circumvent. Australia has already seen young people turning to VPNs, fake ages and shared accounts. When that happens, the online world doesn’t disappear, it simply becomes less visible to parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals. A ban may push children into darker corners of the internet, not out of harm’s way. And enforcing age restrictions at scale raises profound questions about surveillance. Do we really want to normalise facial scanning or ID checks for every child who wants to message a friend or watch a video?

Another tension is emerging: if we trust sixteen‑year‑olds with the vote yet restrict their access to platforms that are now their primary source of news and political debate, we risk creating an information cliff edge. Protection must align with civic reality. And although misinformation is a real concern, research consistently shows that older adults, not young people, are the group most likely to share it.

Removing young people from social media altogether also risks delaying their ability to navigate online risks, build digital resilience and participate in civic and cultural life. This is why many experts argue the debate is being framed far too narrowly. The choice is not between a ban or a free‑for‑all. Other countries are exploring more nuanced approaches: France is considering stricter age‑verification and limits on addictive design; Ireland is reviewing tiered protections; several US states have proposed bans but are shifting toward design‑safety laws; and New Zealand is examining platform accountability rather than prohibition.

There is a middle path – one that focuses on platform design rather than just the age of users. We should restrict addictive features like infinite scroll, require safer algorithms for minors, mandate transparency about content recommendation, and invest in digital literacy so young people learn to navigate online risks, not hide from them. And crucially, we must strengthen the offline world: youth services, mental health support, community spaces, and the social infrastructure that gives children a sense of belonging beyond their screens.

Australia’s experiment is important. It forces us to confront the scale of the problem and challenges the complacency of tech companies. But if we treat a ban as a silver bullet, we risk failing the very children we are trying to protect. The real question is not whether we should ban social media for under‑16s, but whether we are willing to build a digital ecosystem, and a society, where young people can thrive without needing to escape into their phones.

Prof. Javed Khan OBE is Managing Director of the public policy think tank Equi and was CEO of the children’s charity Barnardo’s from 2014 to 2021.

The views expressed in Equi Comments pieces reflect the author’s perspective and do not necessarily represent the views of Equi. We provide this platform to encourage dialogue on broad themes related to our work, from diverse perspectives.