select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on the UK Government announcing a social media ban for under-16s.
Prof Amy Orben, Research Professor and Programme Leader at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, said:
“The UK government has just announced a social media ban for under 16s. Whether this is a good or bad policy decision depends on what we consider to be the ultimate goal of this ban.
“On the one hand, this ban will not solve our collective concerns about the increasingly digital childhoods experienced in the UK today. We know from the Australian ban that current enforcements are incomplete, and the majority of young people are still online at similar rates. Evidence synthesis from my team and others shows that we should likely not expect substantial boosts to well-being or mental health in the short term, or large changes in behaviours or rates of parental conflict.
“However, a ban is likely to change public perceptions, and make social media use less acceptable in younger age groups. This is an important first step in public health education and behavioural change. It can also minimise instances of individual harms for young people who cease engaging with platforms, and over time it can, if done right, change our culture around social media use among certain age groups.
“First and foremost, the ban is a recognition by government that previous policies to make social media safe have not worked as planned. Banning something for those most vulnerable is a good step if it cannot be made safe. But we know why social media is at times unsafe for not just children but adults as well: this includes harmful content, conduct or communications, as well as design features that make it harder for us to disengage even when we want to. We have failed to adequately address these.
“By banning under 16s, we are constraining their rights to join in with this part of our digital society, because we have lost trust that we can make social media safer for us all at any acceptable rate. I feel a deep sense of disappointment about this.
“I welcome the government’s further announcement that it will introduce restrictions on specific design features across the online world that are particularly high risk, such as AI chatbots or engaging with strangers online. However, again, the question will be about the effectiveness of its implementation.
“Independent evaluation of whether this ban works will be crucial. The UK government needs to stand by its word and show flexibility in addressing digital harms, as it will be an ongoing process – not a one-stop solution.”
Prof Pete Etchells, Professor of Psychology and Science Communication, Bath Spa University:
“While there is general agreement within the scientific community that more needs to be done to ensure that digital platforms are safe by design for children, we still don’t have much solid, objective evidence on the impacts – either way – of age-based social media restrictions. That doesn’t mean that nothing should be done; instead, given that uncertainty, it is important to move forward in a careful, deliberate way. As we learn more about the specifics of how this ban will be implemented and work in practice, it will be important to keep a close eye on the evidence base that is developing around it, so that the potential unintended consequences that many worry about can be identified and reduced early on. Complex issues require complex solutions, so I think it’s important that the ban is seen as one part of a broader set of efforts to improve young people’s digital lives. This also means putting a greater emphasis on building digital and media literacy skills, so that by the time children are old enough to access these platforms, they are well prepared to use them.”
Prof Victoria Goodyear, Professor of Physical Activity, Health, and Wellbeing, University of Birmingham, said:
“Social media is currently embedded in young people’s daily lives, and evidence highlights both benefits and risks. It can support connection, learning and access to information, but there is also consistent evidence linking high and unstructured use with poorer sleep, reduced physical activity, and distractions from learning—all of which can negatively affect wellbeing. Much of the current research focuses on overall screen time, and there is broad consensus that limiting excessive use remains important.
“Current UK guidance reflects this balance. The CMO guidance emphasises setting clear boundaries around screen use, prioritising sleep, and supporting children to develop healthy habits. At the same time, the Online Safety Act places increasing responsibility on technology companies to design safer platforms and reduce harmful content. The forthcoming screentime guidance by the Department for Education for 5-16s will be increasingly important to help parents make informed decisions about supporting their children’s healthy screen use.
“While school or national bans on smartphones and social media are being introduced in some contexts, evidence suggests these measures alone are unlikely to be sufficient to impact on young people’s mental health and wellbeing, and associated education and health outcomes (e.g., attainment, physical activity, sleep). In a digital society, longer-term approaches are needed. These should combine safety-by-design—reducing persuasive and attention-grabbing features—with education that builds young people’s digital skills, confidence and autonomy, particularly as they transition into a technology filled world from age 16.
“Crucially, policy and practice should be supported by ongoing evaluation to strengthen the evidence base and ensure that interventions are both effective and proportionate.”
Prof Andy Miah, Chair of Science Communication & Future Media, University of Salford, said:
“Banning social media for under 16s is the worst possible reaction to concerns about harmful and unhealthy habits online. We’ve spent 20 years ignoring the risk; schools and parents haven’t known what to do, and this is a policy born out of desperation arising from the failure to be bold in guiding young people towards healthier and empowering habits during their time at school.
“We absolutely need more evidence to understand the impact of a ban but, in the absence of clear evidence, we need proactive interventions that support healthy online behaviour. What happens when a child turns 16? Are they just turned out into the Wild West of the internet and expected to protect themselves? I fear this ban is simply kicking the risk down the road and I’ve heard nothing about positively empowering young people to become more resilient to the risks. This should be the policy focus.
“I don’t think we know enough about the impact of the policy, but we can be sure that the consequence is both impractical to enforce and stifling of open conversation. Habits of using digital platforms will go underground and, as such, we’ll know less about how children are using social media.
“Also, the policy doesn’t get to grips with what social media is and this is a fundamental problem. For example, we know that young people are using AI like social media now and there’s even less known about that.
“Obvious examples of risk arising from a ban include the young people who, currently, have their social network through their digital worlds. Not everyone has a supportive friendship group in person and, while that may seem sad, removing social media access for such people means social isolation. So, we’ll likely see a number of mental health concerns arise as a result of this ban.
“Perhaps the biggest loss from this ban is the positive conversation we could be having about the remarkable technology that everyone has in their hands now. These powerful devices could be used to change the world and we’ve not had that conversation ever with children. It’s just been completely neglected. “
Prof Andy Phippen, Professor of IT Ethics and Digital Rights, Bournemouth University, said:
“On effectiveness, I would be cautious. The evidence does not suggest that a blanket ban, on its own, will substantially reduce harm to young people. It may reduce some forms of exposure on the largest platforms, but harm is not produced simply by access. It is produced by design features, recommendation systems, commercial incentives, weak moderation, poor reporting routes, and the absence of trusted support when things go wrong.
“Australia is the obvious comparison, but it is still too early to draw strong conclusions. Its ban only recently came into force, so we do not yet have robust longitudinal evidence on whether it reduces harm. What we do have is evidence of implementation difficulty: questions about age assurance, circumvention, VPN use, false accounts, and whether young people simply move to less visible or less well-regulated spaces. That should make us careful about presenting Australia as proof of concept, or whether a “stronger” approach to the Australian approach will be any more successful.
“The proposed restrictions around stranger engagement on gaming and livestreaming platforms are potentially more targeted and, in my view, may be more promising than a blanket social media ban. Limiting unsolicited contact, disabling location sharing, restricting disappearing messages, and reducing adult access to children in high-risk spaces are all more closely connected to specific patterns of harm. Similar ideas already exist in online safety regulation and platform safety design, but consistent implementation across gaming, streaming and messaging environments remains patchy.
“At this stage, I do not think we have enough detail to fully assess the policy. We need to know which services are in scope, how “social media” is being defined, what age assurance will be required, what data will be collected, how appeals will work, how Ofcom will enforce compliance, and how unintended consequences will be monitored. Without that detail, it is very difficult to separate a serious safeguarding intervention from a politically attractive announcement.
“My main concern is that a total ban risks becoming a form of policy theatre. It may reassure adults while shifting attention away from the harder questions about platform design, regulation, education, youth support and enforcement. There is also a real risk that some young people will be pushed into more hidden spaces, become less likely to disclose harmful experiences, or lose access to peer support, identity exploration and information. For vulnerable young people in particular, the internet is not only a place of risk; it can also be a place of connection and help.
“The role of researchers now is not simply to line up for or against the ban. We need to ask better questions: what harms are reduced, for whom, in what contexts, and at what cost? We also need to track displacement effects, children’s lived experiences, parental responses, platform compliance, and whether the policy actually changes the systems that produce harm. Crucially, young people themselves need to be part of that research, not just the object of it.
“On age verification, effective tools exist for some contexts, but there is no perfect, universal solution. Document checks, facial age estimation, mobile network checks, payment-card checks and trusted digital identity systems can all play a role, but each comes with trade-offs around accuracy, privacy, inclusion, cost and circumvention. The more robust the system, the more intrusive it may become; the less intrusive it is, the easier it may be to bypass.
“So yes, government can make access harder. It can require platforms to adopt stronger age-assurance systems, audit compliance, impose fines, and restrict high-risk design features. But “harder” is not the same as “impossible”. Enforcement will depend on platform cooperation, Ofcom’s capacity, technical standards, and whether the policy can adapt as young people and platforms change behaviour. A ban may be enforceable enough to alter the mainstream market, but it should not be sold as a clean technological fix.”
Prof David Ellis, Chair of Behavioural Science, University of Bath, said:
“This ban is based on worry, not evidence. The evidence base as it stands suggests social media has a minuscule effect, if any, on teenagers—particularly once you account for the other factors we know shape childhood development.
“It’s also unlikely to be straightforward to enforce, given what we’ve seen elsewhere, and it risks pushing teenagers towards less regulated parts of the internet. Worse, it lets social media companies off the hook: they can divert resources away from making platforms safer, despite the fact that many young people will simply remain on them.
“This is what happens when politics is put before evidence-based policy. Rather than tackling the difficult question (how to make the online world safer), you sledge hammer yourself into a worse position than when you started.”
(original comment sent on Sunday) Prof Alan Woodward, Professor of Computer Science, University of Surrey, said:
“What is conspicuous by its absence is how we achieve this ban. An outright ban rather than policing the product safety risks mandating something that will fail, and thus not actually achieve the objective which has to be keep the children safe.
“The evidence from Australia suggests that bans are not effective, so it must be better to address the problem with an approach that will work, and will protect children.”
Dr Catherine Sebastian, Head of Evidence for Mental Health at Wellcome, said:
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to gain a better understanding of youth mental health. We do not know how this ban will impact teenagers’ mental health. It is crucial that scientists closely observe what happens to inform future policy.
“Wellcome will be funding nationwide studies to independently monitor the impact of the ban. Researchers will examine whether there is an improvement in teenagers’ mental health – and if so, why. Is it, for example, that teenagers are socialising in real life more, or is it that they are getting better sleep? Young people want to know the answers to these questions, too, so we will work with them to design the studies.
“In addition, this evaluation will help us suggest new ways to support young people. As countries around the world explore the same path, the UK can lead the way in providing rigorous evidence on how the digital world affects mental health.”
Comments from Sunday 14th June on media speculation of the ban:
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
Prof Amy Orben: “Co-principal investigator of the Wellcome funded social media reduction trial in Bradford; member of the Austraian eSafety Commissioner’s Social Media Minimum Age Evaluation Academic Advisory Group; Director of the DSIT research commission “Feasibility Study of Methods and Data to Understand the Impact of Smartphones and Social Media on Children and Young People”; Member of DfE Science Advisory Council and DSIT/DCMS College of Experts; ESRC Smart Data Research UK Programme Board member, Digital Futures for Children Advisory Board member; In 2023 I gave paid talks to SWGfL and Apple University; I have received funding or consultancy payments from UKRI, Wellcome Trust, Jacobs Foundation, Huo Family Foundation, UK Department of Innovation Science and Technology, Prudence Trust, National Institute of Health, Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge and Barnardo’s.”
Prof Pete Etchells: Member of the DSIT Expert Panel for Growing Up in the Online World; Member of the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s Social Media Minimum Age Evaluation Academic Advisory Group; Member of the Department for Education’s 5–16 Screen Use Expert Advisory Group; Member of the DCMS College of Experts; Author of Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it better); Author of Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Games and What They Can Do For Us
Prof Andy Miah: None
Prof Victoria Goodyear: Related work has also been funded by the NIHR, ESRC, Birmingham Alumni Funding, and Research England, and VG has been part of a consortium for the Department for Science Innovation and Technology and provides advice to Department for Education on adolescents. VG currently receives funding from Department for Education for a systematic review on digital media. All funding is paid to The University of Birmingham.
Prof Andy Phippen: I’m a trustee of SWGfL, who are an online safety charity.
Prof David Ellis: I receive funding from UKRI and was a member of a government-commissioned research project led by Cambridge – more details here https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/university-of-bath-research-to-examine-impact-of-smartphones-and-social-media-on-young-people/
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.