select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on speculation of a social media ban for under-16s.
Dr Holly Bear Senior Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, said:
“If media reports are confirmed: The aim of protecting children online is one many of us share. But the evidence to date linking social media to children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing is mixed and largely correlational, with effects that depend more on what they see and do online than on access alone. There is little direct evidence that raising the minimum age improves mental health and wellbeing, and it is still early days for Australia’s ban, introduced only in December, so what it achieves for young people’s wellbeing, and how far age limits can be enforced, is not yet clear.
“When thinking about protecting children, we must also think about those, particularly the most vulnerable, for whom online spaces are where they find support, information, and connection, including for their mental health. Harm and support often sit side by side in the same spaces, which is why a blanket age ban is a blunt tool and a stronger step than the current evidence can support.
“An age limit may change when children reach these platforms, not what is waiting for them when they do. If harmful content is not removed and the algorithms that recommend it are not made safer, the same risks remain in place for every young person once they turn 16, or find a way around the limit sooner. Restricting individual access without regulating the platforms themselves won’t solve these problems. A ban also risks taking away the protective parts of these spaces along with the harmful ones.
“None of this is an argument for inaction, but for proportionate, well-targeted measures and rigorous evaluation. The planned Wellcome-led evaluation is a real opportunity to learn whether these measures help, harm or neither, and for whom, including the young people most often at the margins of policy, those for whom these spaces can be a vital source of support. Policy should be designed so it can be tested as it rolls out, and the most useful thing researchers can do now is make sure that evaluation, and those young people’s experiences, are built in from the start, not added afterwards.”
Professor James Davenport, fellow at BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, said:
“Much depends on the definition of “effective”. VPNs etc. are ways round it, but some VPNs have withdrawn or greatly constrained their Australian presence.
Would people say that the current rules on alcohol and under-18s are “effective”?
Most children between 16 and 18 (and many younger) will have had alcohol.
A few children become so obsessed with alcohol that they are full-blown alcoholics before they are 12.
Nevertheless, very few people propose repealing these laws on the grounds that they are not “effective”.
See also comments here:
“Age enforcement doesn’t work perfectly in the real world, and it’s even more challenging in the online world.”“This is why the Australians have wisely allowed for a year-long testing period to see how the proposed ban works in practice. We should make sure we learn from the Australians’ practical experience, while maintaining a pragmatic outlook that accepts some level of evasion, rather than expecting perfection.”
Prof Dennis Ougrin, lead on Youth Resilience Research Unit at Queen Mary University of London, said:
“My position is neither ideological nor absolute. I remain largely agnostic. Social media, like any technology, is a vehicle and perhaps an accelerator. It has a potential to create more problems for some vulnerable children and it has the potential to alleviate suffering for other vulnerable children. If high-quality evidence showed that a ban substantially reduced self-harm, depression, exploitation and cyberbullying, I would support it. But as a clinician and researcher, I think major policies affecting millions of young people should be driven by evidence, and we do not yet have that evidence.”
Dr Junade Ali, Fellow at the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), said:
“Currently there is insufficient scientific evidence to attribute the post-2012 mental-health crisis to social media. Scientific evidence on this matter remains contentious and is not settled. However, the strongest evidence currently is that adolescent girls are more vulnerable than boys, certain usage patterns (around appearance/social comparison and heavy usage) may be harmful and that there can be individual risks for certain users.
“The second-order effects of bans are not yet well understood; for example, there is little understood how much bans can affect digital social skills, usage of higher-risk online environments or long-term effects in adulthood.
“A stronger approach may well be to more directly target documented harms, which are demonstrated on a population-wide basis.”
“There is a real concern about keeping children safe online, but a ban alone won’t fix this, and we need to make sure we’re not moving young people to darker corners of the internet with fewer protections. We can’t raise a generation of digital citizens by keeping them offline, and the skills young people need to stay safe online are the same skills they’ll need to get a job, participate in society, and navigate an increasingly digital world.”
“The ban cannot be an isolated tool and government must work with industry to make platforms safer by design and invest in digital literacy and parental support. What’s needed is precise, targeted, evidence-based policy that tackles the root cause and keeps pace with how technology is evolving.”
Rafe Clayton, Senior Lecturer in Media Practice at the University of Leeds, said:
“If media reports are confirmed, then this marks a landmark policy change, that many parents will welcome. For years now, the dominant public message from big tech and Government has been that the digital world is beneficial and productive. Whilst true to an extent, the public have often expressed serious concerns around negative screen time impacts, as shown by our 2022 University of Leeds study.
“A cultural response is now occurring, as young people and parents are recognising the harms that the digital world brings. It is right that the Government recognise and act upon the worries of the population. In my view, the global evidence base supports these restrictions.”
Prof Alan Woodward, Professor of Computer Science, University of Surrey, said:
“We’ve yet to see the full details of what the government will propose, but the Sunday Times does seem consistent what has been said so far, and as a general direction of travel they appear to be looking for technological solutions to sociological problems. Some of what has been said publicly fails the technical practicability test as it will impact privacy and security for all, including the very children they seek to protect. Whilst no one in their right mind wants a child to be harmed, there are alternative ways to address the issue, and this is a multi-stakeholder approach, only a section of whom are the technology providers.
“The situation was summed up in an open letter many of us from around the world signed a couple of months ago https://csa-scientist-open-letter.org/ageverif-Feb2026
“The area is complicated technically with, for example, proving age in the 15-19 bracket being problematic unless done by offering up pre-validated Digital ID. This has the knock on effect that everyone may be required to verify themselves which has social/democratic/privacy implications.
“In short, many technology and services providers may have to withdraw from the U.K. and that would leave U.K. user in general far worse off. Signal messenger issued a statement saying this very directly. We could literally become a technological desert. If the government worked with technology companies in areas such as algorithm design, privacy preserving image blocking, etc, much of which already exists, and did not try to force through the full panoply of what has been suggested, they could achieve the result they wanted without what will inevitably be a confrontation with the tech companies.
“Whilst what the government appears to be suggesting may be from the best of intentions, based on some of what has been suggested in various speeches, it would be technically infeasible, and ultimately unenforceable.
“I have strongly encouraged the policy makers throughout the consultation period to base this on broad evidence, not the dreadful anecdotal experiences of some, and propose something that will not simply score political points but be technically feasible so that the overall objective of protecting children is achieved.”
Prof Jon Crowcroft , Marconi Professor of Communications Systems , University of Cambridge and a visiting professor at the Department of Computing at Imperial College London, said:
“If today’s Sunday Times reports are confirmed I have concerns. The organisations pressing the government “to do something” are well meaning, but possibly mis-guided. There’s no evidence the bans are effective in reducing real problems for the vulnerable – who by the way aren’t only young people – the problem is the regulator has failed to effectively apply existing law against platforms that have harmful content. There is a real risk this will drive some users to worse sites and policing devices is close to impossible technically. Policing platforms is far easier, if only regulators would bother. There are sites children need to use (e.g. to report abuse) and this risks them not being able to.”
Reports being reported in Sunday Times
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/social-media-ban-keir-starmer-qcmskxc5z
Declared interests
Professor Alan Woodward: No conflicts to declare
Professor Jon Crowcroft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Crowcroft
Work in cambridge university and the alan turing institute
Plus am on science advisory board for various research labs….
But no other conflicts right now
Only current project that has a bearing is that we are doing a study on what the landscape for Future Internet research might be, which includes
Social factors as well as technical…
Rafe Clayton is currently working on a project funded by the 1001 Critical Days Foundation about the impacts of screen time on babies under the age of two. The study referenced was funded by Research England’s Policy Support Fund.
Dr Junade Ali is also an employed research associate at The Alan Turing Institute, but his research interests do not conflict with this subject-matter.
Dennis Ougrin: My details are here https://www.qmul.ac.uk/wiph/people/profiles/ougrin-dennis.html
Holly Bear has provided paid consultancy to Girl Effect, a non-governmental organisation focused on improving the health, education and livelihoods of girls, arranged through Oxford University Innovation.
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.