The UK government has announced plans to ban social media platforms from offering services to children under the age of 16.
For some people, this feels long overdue.
For others, it feels unrealistic, heavy-handed or too difficult to enforce.
For many parents, teachers, youth workers, social workers and safeguarding professionals, it probably feels like both things at once. Because the truth is complicated.
Children have experienced real harm online. That harm is not imagined. It is not simply adult panic. It is not just about “too much screen time”. At the same time, a ban will not solve everything. It will not remove grooming. It will not end youth violence. It will not stop misogyny, bullying, exploitation or harmful content by itself.
So this article is not about easy slogans. It is about explaining what the proposed ban actually is, what it is not, what the evidence says, what the common myths get wrong, and what practitioners, parents and policymakers still need to understand.
What is the under-16 social media ban?
In June 2026, the UK government announced plans to stop social media platforms from offering their services to children under the age of 16. The government says the first set of regulations should be laid before the end of 2026, with the changes expected to come into force in Spring 2027 (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology [DSIT], 2026a, 2026b).
At the time of writing, the full details are still being developed. That means the final platform list, enforcement process and technical age-checking requirements may still change. But the direction is clear: the government wants to make social media platforms responsible for keeping under-16s off certain services.
Which platforms could be included?
The government says it plans to follow a similar model to Australia. That means the ban is likely to apply to major user-to-user platforms designed for social interaction, where people can post content and be exposed to algorithmic feeds.
The platforms named by the government include:
Instagram
TikTok
Snapchat
YouTube
Facebook
X
The government has also said that some harmful features will be restricted for under-16s, including livestreaming and communication with strangers. These restrictions are expected to apply more widely, including on some gaming services (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
That is important, because many risks do not sit neatly inside one app. Children can be contacted, pressured, groomed or exposed to harmful content across social media, gaming, livestreaming, messaging and private groups. In 2023 for example, a child was groomed over the course of a year through the music app Spotify (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-64262918)
What is not included?
This is where some of the confusion begins.
The proposed ban does not mean children are being banned from the whole internet, nor does it mean they won't be able to have mobile phones.
The government says messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not currently intended to be included in the social media ban (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
It also says children should still be able to go online for learning, news, games and staying in touch with known friends and family. Educational services, e-commerce platforms and music streaming services are not intended to be pulled into the ban by mistake (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
So this is not a total internet ban. It is a proposed restriction on certain social media services and high-risk features.
Will children be criminalised for using social media?
As currently described, no.
The legal responsibility is aimed at platforms, not children. The government’s own fact sheet says parents and children do not need to do anything right now, and that further guidance will be provided before the changes come into force in 2027 (DSIT, 2026b).
That distinction matters. Children should not be criminalised for being online. The purpose of the policy should be to make platforms safer and more accountable, not to create another way of punishing young people.
Why is this being considered?
The simple answer is this: children’s lives are now deeply digital.
Ofcom found that 96% of children aged 3 to 17 went online in 2024, and once children reach the age of 10 to 12, more than 99% go online (Ofcom, 2025).
Ofcom also found that 79% of children aged 3 to 17 had their own profile on at least one social media, messaging, video-sharing or livestreaming service (Ofcom, 2025).
This is not occasional exposure.
For many children, online life is part of everyday life. It is where they learn, talk, watch, compare, laugh, argue, explore identity, find information, seek support and build friendships. But it is also a place where there are many documented cases of children being bullied, groomed, shamed, threatened, sexualised, manipulated, exposed to violence or pulled into harmful networks.
How long are children spending online?
This needs careful explanation, because “screen time” can mean different things.
There is total online time.
There is social media time.
There is video watching.
There is messaging.
There is gaming.
There is homework.
There is passive scrolling.
There is late-night use.
There is compulsive use.
They are not all the same.
Ofcom’s 2026 passive measurement study of children aged 8 to 14 found that they spent an average of 3 hours and 36 minutes a day online across smartphones, tablets and computers. This rose with age, from 2 hours and 53 minutes among 8- to 9-year-olds to 4 hours and 19 minutes among 13- to 14-year-olds (Ofcom, 2026a).
But averages can hide a lot. The same Ofcom study found that children aged 8 to 14 in the top quarter for online use were online for an average of 6 hours and 42 minutes a day. Among 10- to 12-year-olds in the top quarter, this rose to 7 hours the same for 13- to 14-year-olds in the top quarter, Weekend use was higher than weekday use.
.
Savanta’s 2026 research for the government found even higher self-reported social media use among children and young people whilst the Children’s Commissioner report from 2018, drawing on Ofcom figures, said more than 150,000 children aged 12 to 15 were spending over 8 hours a day online at the weekend (Children’s Commissioner for England, 2018). The same amount as an average working day.
So yes, some children are spending very long periods online, especially at weekends and that should concern us.
Is screen time itself the problem?
Not always.
This is one of the most important points in the whole debate.
The evidence does not support a lazy argument that every hour online is automatically harmful. A UK longitudinal study using data from Understanding Society found little evidence that more time spent on social media alone was associated with later mental health problems in UK adolescents (Plackett et al., 2023).
That matters. It means we should not simply say, “More screen time equals more harm.”
But that does not mean there is no harm.
Other research suggests that risk may be more closely linked to what young people are doing online, what they are exposed to, whether their use becomes compulsive, whether it affects sleep, whether it damages self-esteem, and whether online pressure spills into offline life. A 2025 JAMA study found that high or increasing addictive use of social media, mobile phones or video games was associated with suicidal thoughts, suicidal behaviours and worse mental health among young people. The study also found that baseline total screen time alone was not independently associated with those outcomes once addictive use patterns were considered (Xiao et al., 2025).
That is a crucial distinction.
The issue is not only how long children are online.
The issue is whether they can switch off.
Whether they feel pulled back.
Whether they are sleeping.
Whether they are being contacted.
Whether they are being humiliated.
Whether they are being groomed.
Whether they are being threatened.
Whether they are being fed violent, sexualised or distressing content.
Whether they are using the online world for support, or being harmed through it.
What are the benefits of being online?
The online world is not only harmful. For many children, it is useful, enjoyable and important. Ofcom found that many children and young people identify real benefits from being online. Teenagers use the internet for schoolwork, friendships, hobbies, information, news, causes they care about and support (Ofcom, 2025). For some children, especially those who are isolated, disabled, neurodivergent, LGBTQ+, anxious, bullied, rural or struggling to find belonging offline, online spaces can provide connection and identity.
However there are also harms.
What are the harms?
The harms are not imaginary.
Ofcom found that girls were more likely than boys to experience nasty or hurtful interactions online, 34% compared with 28% (Ofcom, 2025). The Youth Endowment Fund found that 70% of teenagers aged 13 to 17 in England and Wales had encountered real-life violence on social media in the previous 12 months. Only 6% said they had actively searched for it (Youth Endowment Fund, 2024).
Those findings are quite serious. Many children are not looking for violent content. It is finding them. The same YEF research found exposure to weapons, gang activity, fights and sexual violence or threats. It also found that some children felt less safe in their local area after seeing weapons content online (Youth Endowment Fund, 2024). That should be a concern for any parent, any practitoner, in fact for anyone working in youth held spaces. Fear changes behaviour. If a young person sees knives, threats and fights online, they may start to feel that violence is everywhere. If they feel violence is everywhere, they may feel they need protection.If they feel they need protection, carrying a weapon may start to feel rational, even when it increases their risk. If then, in the same spaces that they are watching the violence the purchase of weapons is just a few clicks away it changes everything.
That is how online harm can become offline danger.
This is why this matters for youth violence and exploitation. Before and after every incident, there is often a digital footprint.
A post before an incident.
A message after it.
A rumour.
A threat.
A recording.
A repost.
A group chat.
A humiliation.
A dare.
A challenge.
A comment that turns pain into performance.
Social media may not cause every violent incident. But it can act as a conduit.
It can make conflict travel faster.
It can make humiliation harder to escape.
It can turn violence into status.
It can make fear spread.
It can keep retaliation alive.
It can pull children into group pressure that adults do not see.
It can allow exploiters to contact, monitor, groom, threaten or control children.
The Home Office’s county lines guidance recognises that child criminal exploitation can happen through technology, including social media, messaging apps, gaming sites and other online services (Home Office, 2023). That means practitioners cannot treat online behaviour as separate from safeguarding. A child’s phone may hold the missing piece of the risk picture and again this is another area of contention where social media and phone companies refuse to hand over the information that can unlock a childs online activity.
Myth 1: “The ban has already come in”
No.
The ban has been announced, but it is not yet fully in force.
The government expects the first set of regulations to be laid before the end of 2026, with changes expected to be implemented in Spring 2027 (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
So families, schools and practitioners do not need to act as if the ban is already operating. But they do need to prepare for the fact that the rules are changing.
Myth 2: “Children are being banned from the whole internet”
No.
The proposed ban is aimed at certain social media platforms and high-risk features. It does not ban children from going online for learning, games, news or staying in touch with known friends and family (DSIT, 2026b).
WhatsApp and Signal are not currently intended to be included in the social media ban (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
That is important, but it also raises a safeguarding question.
If children cannot access some mainstream social media platforms, where will they go instead?
Will risk move into messaging apps?
Gaming chat?
Private groups?
Borrowed accounts?
Older siblings’ accounts?
Alternative platforms?
The ban may close some doors. It will not remove every route.
Myth 3: “Children will just use VPNs”
This argument is everywhere, but it is not true.
Reasearch from Australia's ban shows that young people did not simply migrate to VPNs. VPN's are not free, often requiring a credit or debit card to access. Children will go where their friends are and if the majority of their friends can't access VPN's the easier option is just to use platforms with weaker age restrictions, others used simpler methods such as changing dates of birth, using new accounts, borrowing accounts or using older relatives’ details (Nansen et al., 2026).
Myth 5: “The ban will stop grooming”
No.
The ban may reduce some routes into grooming. It may make some platforms less accessible to under-16s. It may reduce exposure to strangers, livestreaming and algorithmic feeds.
But grooming is adaptive.
It can move across platforms.
It can begin in public and shift into private messages.
It can happen through gaming.
It can happen through image-sharing.
It can happen through debt.
It can happen through relationships.
It can happen offline and be reinforced online.
It can happen through fear, shame, loyalty, threats or emotional dependency.
The ban may change the route. It will not remove the risk.
That is why practitioners must keep asking digital safeguarding questions, even after restrictions come in.
Who can contact this child?
Who are they speaking to privately?
Are they using more than one account?
Has anyone asked them to send images?
Has anyone threatened to expose them?
Are they being pressured through group chats?
Are online threats shaping offline behaviour?
Are they frightened of what might be posted?
Those questions will still matter.
Myth 6: “This is just moral panic”
This is one of the weakest arguments against action.
Yes, some public debate about children and technology can become exaggerated.
But the evidence does not support the idea that online harm is invented.
Ofcom’s evidence shows children encounter nasty, worrying and harmful experiences online (Ofcom, 2025). YEF’s evidence shows high levels of exposure to real-life violence on social media (Youth Endowment Fund, 2024). NSPCC evidence shows online platforms and private messaging are used in grooming and sexual communication offences against children (NSPCC, 2025).
For those of us working around safeguarding, exploitation and youth violence, this is not abstract.
We have seen school fights organised online.
We have seen threats escalate through posts.
We have seen humiliation become a motive.
We have seen violence filmed for status.
We have seen children pressured through group chats.
We have seen online content affect how safe young people feel in their local area.
Calling that moral panic lets platforms off the hook.
Myth 7: “Parents should just manage it”
Parents matter. Boundaries matter. Conversations at home matter.
But it is unfair and unrealistic to place the main responsibility on parents.
Many parents are stretched. Many are working long hours. Many are dealing with poverty, housing stress, SEND needs, mental health concerns, family pressures and school issues. Many do not fully understand the platforms their children use. Many are trying hard and still feel outpaced.
Ofcom found that more than half of 8- to 17-year-olds with profiles had more than one profile on the same type of service (Ofcom, 2025). Some children have one account for family to see, one for close friends, and another that feels more like the “real me”.
That makes monitoring much more complicated than simply saying, “Check their phone.”
Parents have a role.
But families cannot regulate billion-pound digital environments from the kitchen table.
Myth 8: “Schools can solve it with online safety lessons”
Schools have a vital role. Online safety education matters.
Ofcom found that 92% of 8- to 17-year-olds could recall having at least one school lesson about being online and possible risks (Ofcom, 2025).
That is positive. But education is not the same as regulation.
A school lesson cannot redesign an algorithm.
A poster cannot stop a child being contacted at midnight.
A teacher cannot monitor every group chat.
A DSL cannot control every platform feature.
Schools should teach digital safety, but they should not be left to absorb the consequences of platform design.
Myth 9: “Social media companies are neutral”
They are not.
Platforms do not simply host content. They design the environment.
They decide what is recommended.
They decide what is rewarded.
They decide what keeps users scrolling.
They decide what features are available.
They decide how easy it is for strangers to connect.
They decide how hard it is to report harm.
They decide how quickly harmful content is removed.
They decide whether a child is pulled deeper into a feed.
The government itself has said that algorithmic feeds can intensify exposure to dangerous, distressing or overly engaging material (DSIT, 2026a).
That matters.
If a platform recommends harmful content, it is not neutral.
If a platform allows strangers to contact children, it is not neutral.
If a platform profits from attention while children absorb the harm, it is not neutral.
I think it is worth pointing out that social media companies have a vested interest in resisting a ban, Some sources have estimated they stand to lose in total around £1.3bn in advertising revenue by stopping access to under 16's to social media (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/17/uk-social-media-ban-digital-advertising-snapchat-instagram-youtube). Those sort of figures should concern us. Its enough for any company to put their needs above the needs of a child or to consider any form of safeguarding.
Myth 10: “Online spaces are only dangerous”
This is false.
Online spaces can be protective. They can help children learn, connect, create, seek advice and feel less alone.
For some children, online communities may be the only place they feel understood.
That is why the answer cannot be “online bad, offline good”.
The issue is not whether children should ever benefit from the internet.
The issue is whether children should be placed inside commercial systems that expose them to preventable harm, while families and schools are expected to carry the consequences.
We can defend children’s need for connection while still demanding that platforms stop exposing them to avoidable risk.
My personal view
My view is that I support strong action against social media companies, including age-based restrictions.
Not because I think a ban solves everything.
It does not.
It may be part of the answer.
It may help reset the norm.
It may support parents.
It may force platforms to take age seriously.
It may reduce some exposure to harmful features and algorithmic feeds.
But it will not solve the deeper issues by itself.
It will not replace youth work.
It will not replace family support.
It will not replace mental health services.
It will not replace early intervention.
It will not replace contextual safeguarding.
It will not solve poverty, exclusion, racism, trauma, SEND gaps or violence in communities.
The ban should be a line in the sand, not a substitute for support.
What should practitioners take from this?
The most important thing is not to stop asking questions.
If anything, the ban should sharpen our digital safeguarding practice not step back from it.
We should ask:
What platforms is this child using?
Do they have more than one account?
Who can contact them privately?
Are they part of group chats adults do not know about?
Have they seen weapons, fights or threats online?
Are they scared of what might be posted?
Are they being humiliated?
Are they being pressured to respond?
Are images being used to control them?
Are online threats linked to offline behaviour?
Is their sleep being affected?
Can they switch off?
Does being online help them feel connected, or does it make them feel unsafe?
These questions are not extras. They are crucial safeguarding ones.
Not because I think every child online is unsafe.
They are not.
Not because I think parents, schools and practitioners have no role.
They absolutely do.
But because we have reached a point where too much responsibility has been pushed onto children, families, teachers and frontline workers, while the companies designing and profiting from these environments continue to present themselves as if they are only passive hosts.
That is not good enough.
When children are being exposed to violence, grooming, sexual pressure, misogyny, humiliation, threats and compulsive design, we cannot keep calling this individual choice.
When families are stretched, we cannot simply say, “Monitor it better.”
When schools are stretched, we cannot simply say, “Teach another lesson.”
When practitioners are stretched, we cannot simply say, “Spot every digital risk.”
And when platforms are shaping the environment, we cannot let them deny responsibility for the harm that environment creates.
If this were smoking, gambling, unsafe products or dangerous public spaces, we would not rely only on guidance and good intentions.
We would regulate.
The ban must be implemented carefully. It must protect privacy. It must avoid isolating vulnerable children. It must not drive harm into less visible places without adults noticing. It must not become another way of blaming children. And it must not become an excuse for failing to invest in youth work, safeguarding, mental health, family support and early intervention.
But as a line in the sand, I understand it.
Children should not be left to survive systems adults have failed to control.
The real test is not whether the ban sounds tough.
The real test is whether children are safer.
References
Children’s Commissioner for England. (2018). Playing out: A Children’s Commissioner’s report on the importance to children of play and physical activity.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2026a). Social media to be banned for under-16s in landmark government move to give kids their childhood back.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2026b). Fact sheet: New rules to protect children online.
Home Office. (2023). Criminal exploitation of children and vulnerable adults: County lines guidance.
Maza, M. T., Fox, K. A., Kwon, S. J., Flannery, J. E., Lindquist, K. A., Prinstein, M. J., & Telzer, E. H. (2023). Association of habitual checking behaviors on social media with longitudinal functional brain development. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(2), 160–167.
Nansen, B., Jaynes, V., & Kennedy, J. (2026). From phreaking to sneaking: Children’s circumvention of social media age verification systems.
NSPCC. (2025). Data shows how criminals are using private messaging platforms to manipulate and groom children.
Ofcom. (2025). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2025.
Ofcom. (2026a). Children’s passive online measurement report.
Plackett, R., Sheringham, J., & Dykxhoorn, J. (2023). The longitudinal impact of social media use on UK adolescents’ mental health: Longitudinal observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e43213.
Savanta. (2026). Children’s wellbeing online: Social media quantitative report.
Xiao, Y., Meng, Y., Brown, T. T., Keyes, K. M., & Mann, J. J. (2025). Addictive screen use trajectories and suicidal behaviors, suicidal ideation, and mental health in US youths. JAMA, 334(3), 219–228.
Youth Endowment Fund. (2024). What role does social media play in violence affecting young people?
For some people, this feels long overdue.
For others, it feels unrealistic, heavy-handed or too difficult to enforce.
For many parents, teachers, youth workers, social workers and safeguarding professionals, it probably feels like both things at once. Because the truth is complicated.
Children have experienced real harm online. That harm is not imagined. It is not simply adult panic. It is not just about “too much screen time”. At the same time, a ban will not solve everything. It will not remove grooming. It will not end youth violence. It will not stop misogyny, bullying, exploitation or harmful content by itself.
So this article is not about easy slogans. It is about explaining what the proposed ban actually is, what it is not, what the evidence says, what the common myths get wrong, and what practitioners, parents and policymakers still need to understand.
What is the under-16 social media ban?
In June 2026, the UK government announced plans to stop social media platforms from offering their services to children under the age of 16. The government says the first set of regulations should be laid before the end of 2026, with the changes expected to come into force in Spring 2027 (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology [DSIT], 2026a, 2026b).
At the time of writing, the full details are still being developed. That means the final platform list, enforcement process and technical age-checking requirements may still change. But the direction is clear: the government wants to make social media platforms responsible for keeping under-16s off certain services.
Which platforms could be included?
The government says it plans to follow a similar model to Australia. That means the ban is likely to apply to major user-to-user platforms designed for social interaction, where people can post content and be exposed to algorithmic feeds.
The platforms named by the government include:
TikTok
Snapchat
YouTube
X
The government has also said that some harmful features will be restricted for under-16s, including livestreaming and communication with strangers. These restrictions are expected to apply more widely, including on some gaming services (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
That is important, because many risks do not sit neatly inside one app. Children can be contacted, pressured, groomed or exposed to harmful content across social media, gaming, livestreaming, messaging and private groups. In 2023 for example, a child was groomed over the course of a year through the music app Spotify (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-64262918)
What is not included?
This is where some of the confusion begins.
The proposed ban does not mean children are being banned from the whole internet, nor does it mean they won't be able to have mobile phones.
The government says messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not currently intended to be included in the social media ban (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
It also says children should still be able to go online for learning, news, games and staying in touch with known friends and family. Educational services, e-commerce platforms and music streaming services are not intended to be pulled into the ban by mistake (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
So this is not a total internet ban. It is a proposed restriction on certain social media services and high-risk features.
Will children be criminalised for using social media?
As currently described, no.
The legal responsibility is aimed at platforms, not children. The government’s own fact sheet says parents and children do not need to do anything right now, and that further guidance will be provided before the changes come into force in 2027 (DSIT, 2026b).
That distinction matters. Children should not be criminalised for being online. The purpose of the policy should be to make platforms safer and more accountable, not to create another way of punishing young people.
Why is this being considered?
The simple answer is this: children’s lives are now deeply digital.
Ofcom found that 96% of children aged 3 to 17 went online in 2024, and once children reach the age of 10 to 12, more than 99% go online (Ofcom, 2025).
Ofcom also found that 79% of children aged 3 to 17 had their own profile on at least one social media, messaging, video-sharing or livestreaming service (Ofcom, 2025).
This is not occasional exposure.
For many children, online life is part of everyday life. It is where they learn, talk, watch, compare, laugh, argue, explore identity, find information, seek support and build friendships. But it is also a place where there are many documented cases of children being bullied, groomed, shamed, threatened, sexualised, manipulated, exposed to violence or pulled into harmful networks.
How long are children spending online?
This needs careful explanation, because “screen time” can mean different things.
There is total online time.
There is social media time.
There is video watching.
There is messaging.
There is gaming.
There is homework.
There is passive scrolling.
There is late-night use.
There is compulsive use.
They are not all the same.
Ofcom’s 2026 passive measurement study of children aged 8 to 14 found that they spent an average of 3 hours and 36 minutes a day online across smartphones, tablets and computers. This rose with age, from 2 hours and 53 minutes among 8- to 9-year-olds to 4 hours and 19 minutes among 13- to 14-year-olds (Ofcom, 2026a).
But averages can hide a lot. The same Ofcom study found that children aged 8 to 14 in the top quarter for online use were online for an average of 6 hours and 42 minutes a day. Among 10- to 12-year-olds in the top quarter, this rose to 7 hours the same for 13- to 14-year-olds in the top quarter, Weekend use was higher than weekday use.
.
Savanta’s 2026 research for the government found even higher self-reported social media use among children and young people whilst the Children’s Commissioner report from 2018, drawing on Ofcom figures, said more than 150,000 children aged 12 to 15 were spending over 8 hours a day online at the weekend (Children’s Commissioner for England, 2018). The same amount as an average working day.
So yes, some children are spending very long periods online, especially at weekends and that should concern us.
Is screen time itself the problem?
Not always.
This is one of the most important points in the whole debate.
The evidence does not support a lazy argument that every hour online is automatically harmful. A UK longitudinal study using data from Understanding Society found little evidence that more time spent on social media alone was associated with later mental health problems in UK adolescents (Plackett et al., 2023).
That matters. It means we should not simply say, “More screen time equals more harm.”
But that does not mean there is no harm.
Other research suggests that risk may be more closely linked to what young people are doing online, what they are exposed to, whether their use becomes compulsive, whether it affects sleep, whether it damages self-esteem, and whether online pressure spills into offline life. A 2025 JAMA study found that high or increasing addictive use of social media, mobile phones or video games was associated with suicidal thoughts, suicidal behaviours and worse mental health among young people. The study also found that baseline total screen time alone was not independently associated with those outcomes once addictive use patterns were considered (Xiao et al., 2025).
That is a crucial distinction.
The issue is not only how long children are online.
The issue is whether they can switch off.
Whether they feel pulled back.
Whether they are sleeping.
Whether they are being contacted.
Whether they are being humiliated.
Whether they are being groomed.
Whether they are being threatened.
Whether they are being fed violent, sexualised or distressing content.
Whether they are using the online world for support, or being harmed through it.
What are the benefits of being online?
The online world is not only harmful. For many children, it is useful, enjoyable and important. Ofcom found that many children and young people identify real benefits from being online. Teenagers use the internet for schoolwork, friendships, hobbies, information, news, causes they care about and support (Ofcom, 2025). For some children, especially those who are isolated, disabled, neurodivergent, LGBTQ+, anxious, bullied, rural or struggling to find belonging offline, online spaces can provide connection and identity.
However there are also harms.
What are the harms?
The harms are not imaginary.
Ofcom found that girls were more likely than boys to experience nasty or hurtful interactions online, 34% compared with 28% (Ofcom, 2025). The Youth Endowment Fund found that 70% of teenagers aged 13 to 17 in England and Wales had encountered real-life violence on social media in the previous 12 months. Only 6% said they had actively searched for it (Youth Endowment Fund, 2024).
Those findings are quite serious. Many children are not looking for violent content. It is finding them. The same YEF research found exposure to weapons, gang activity, fights and sexual violence or threats. It also found that some children felt less safe in their local area after seeing weapons content online (Youth Endowment Fund, 2024). That should be a concern for any parent, any practitoner, in fact for anyone working in youth held spaces. Fear changes behaviour. If a young person sees knives, threats and fights online, they may start to feel that violence is everywhere. If they feel violence is everywhere, they may feel they need protection.If they feel they need protection, carrying a weapon may start to feel rational, even when it increases their risk. If then, in the same spaces that they are watching the violence the purchase of weapons is just a few clicks away it changes everything.
That is how online harm can become offline danger.
This is why this matters for youth violence and exploitation. Before and after every incident, there is often a digital footprint.
A post before an incident.
A message after it.
A rumour.
A threat.
A recording.
A repost.
A group chat.
A humiliation.
A dare.
A challenge.
A comment that turns pain into performance.
Social media may not cause every violent incident. But it can act as a conduit.
It can make conflict travel faster.
It can make humiliation harder to escape.
It can turn violence into status.
It can make fear spread.
It can keep retaliation alive.
It can pull children into group pressure that adults do not see.
It can allow exploiters to contact, monitor, groom, threaten or control children.
The Home Office’s county lines guidance recognises that child criminal exploitation can happen through technology, including social media, messaging apps, gaming sites and other online services (Home Office, 2023). That means practitioners cannot treat online behaviour as separate from safeguarding. A child’s phone may hold the missing piece of the risk picture and again this is another area of contention where social media and phone companies refuse to hand over the information that can unlock a childs online activity.
Myth 1: “The ban has already come in”
No.
The ban has been announced, but it is not yet fully in force.
The government expects the first set of regulations to be laid before the end of 2026, with changes expected to be implemented in Spring 2027 (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
So families, schools and practitioners do not need to act as if the ban is already operating. But they do need to prepare for the fact that the rules are changing.
Myth 2: “Children are being banned from the whole internet”
No.
The proposed ban is aimed at certain social media platforms and high-risk features. It does not ban children from going online for learning, games, news or staying in touch with known friends and family (DSIT, 2026b).
WhatsApp and Signal are not currently intended to be included in the social media ban (DSIT, 2026a, 2026b).
That is important, but it also raises a safeguarding question.
If children cannot access some mainstream social media platforms, where will they go instead?
Will risk move into messaging apps?
Gaming chat?
Private groups?
Borrowed accounts?
Older siblings’ accounts?
Alternative platforms?
The ban may close some doors. It will not remove every route.
Myth 3: “Children will just use VPNs”
This argument is everywhere, but it is not true.
Reasearch from Australia's ban shows that young people did not simply migrate to VPNs. VPN's are not free, often requiring a credit or debit card to access. Children will go where their friends are and if the majority of their friends can't access VPN's the easier option is just to use platforms with weaker age restrictions, others used simpler methods such as changing dates of birth, using new accounts, borrowing accounts or using older relatives’ details (Nansen et al., 2026).
Myth 5: “The ban will stop grooming”
No.
The ban may reduce some routes into grooming. It may make some platforms less accessible to under-16s. It may reduce exposure to strangers, livestreaming and algorithmic feeds.
But grooming is adaptive.
It can move across platforms.
It can begin in public and shift into private messages.
It can happen through gaming.
It can happen through image-sharing.
It can happen through debt.
It can happen through relationships.
It can happen offline and be reinforced online.
It can happen through fear, shame, loyalty, threats or emotional dependency.
The ban may change the route. It will not remove the risk.
That is why practitioners must keep asking digital safeguarding questions, even after restrictions come in.
Who can contact this child?
Who are they speaking to privately?
Are they using more than one account?
Has anyone asked them to send images?
Has anyone threatened to expose them?
Are they being pressured through group chats?
Are online threats shaping offline behaviour?
Are they frightened of what might be posted?
Those questions will still matter.
Myth 6: “This is just moral panic”
This is one of the weakest arguments against action.
Yes, some public debate about children and technology can become exaggerated.
But the evidence does not support the idea that online harm is invented.
Ofcom’s evidence shows children encounter nasty, worrying and harmful experiences online (Ofcom, 2025). YEF’s evidence shows high levels of exposure to real-life violence on social media (Youth Endowment Fund, 2024). NSPCC evidence shows online platforms and private messaging are used in grooming and sexual communication offences against children (NSPCC, 2025).
For those of us working around safeguarding, exploitation and youth violence, this is not abstract.
We have seen school fights organised online.
We have seen threats escalate through posts.
We have seen humiliation become a motive.
We have seen violence filmed for status.
We have seen children pressured through group chats.
We have seen online content affect how safe young people feel in their local area.
Calling that moral panic lets platforms off the hook.
Myth 7: “Parents should just manage it”
Parents matter. Boundaries matter. Conversations at home matter.
But it is unfair and unrealistic to place the main responsibility on parents.
Many parents are stretched. Many are working long hours. Many are dealing with poverty, housing stress, SEND needs, mental health concerns, family pressures and school issues. Many do not fully understand the platforms their children use. Many are trying hard and still feel outpaced.
Ofcom found that more than half of 8- to 17-year-olds with profiles had more than one profile on the same type of service (Ofcom, 2025). Some children have one account for family to see, one for close friends, and another that feels more like the “real me”.
That makes monitoring much more complicated than simply saying, “Check their phone.”
Parents have a role.
But families cannot regulate billion-pound digital environments from the kitchen table.
Myth 8: “Schools can solve it with online safety lessons”
Schools have a vital role. Online safety education matters.
Ofcom found that 92% of 8- to 17-year-olds could recall having at least one school lesson about being online and possible risks (Ofcom, 2025).
That is positive. But education is not the same as regulation.
A school lesson cannot redesign an algorithm.
A poster cannot stop a child being contacted at midnight.
A teacher cannot monitor every group chat.
A DSL cannot control every platform feature.
Schools should teach digital safety, but they should not be left to absorb the consequences of platform design.
Myth 9: “Social media companies are neutral”
They are not.
Platforms do not simply host content. They design the environment.
They decide what is recommended.
They decide what is rewarded.
They decide what keeps users scrolling.
They decide what features are available.
They decide how easy it is for strangers to connect.
They decide how hard it is to report harm.
They decide how quickly harmful content is removed.
They decide whether a child is pulled deeper into a feed.
The government itself has said that algorithmic feeds can intensify exposure to dangerous, distressing or overly engaging material (DSIT, 2026a).
That matters.
If a platform recommends harmful content, it is not neutral.
If a platform allows strangers to contact children, it is not neutral.
If a platform profits from attention while children absorb the harm, it is not neutral.
I think it is worth pointing out that social media companies have a vested interest in resisting a ban, Some sources have estimated they stand to lose in total around £1.3bn in advertising revenue by stopping access to under 16's to social media (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/17/uk-social-media-ban-digital-advertising-snapchat-instagram-youtube). Those sort of figures should concern us. Its enough for any company to put their needs above the needs of a child or to consider any form of safeguarding.
Myth 10: “Online spaces are only dangerous”
This is false.
Online spaces can be protective. They can help children learn, connect, create, seek advice and feel less alone.
For some children, online communities may be the only place they feel understood.
That is why the answer cannot be “online bad, offline good”.
The issue is not whether children should ever benefit from the internet.
The issue is whether children should be placed inside commercial systems that expose them to preventable harm, while families and schools are expected to carry the consequences.
We can defend children’s need for connection while still demanding that platforms stop exposing them to avoidable risk.
My personal view
My view is that I support strong action against social media companies, including age-based restrictions.
Not because I think a ban solves everything.
It does not.
It may be part of the answer.
It may help reset the norm.
It may support parents.
It may force platforms to take age seriously.
It may reduce some exposure to harmful features and algorithmic feeds.
But it will not solve the deeper issues by itself.
It will not replace youth work.
It will not replace family support.
It will not replace mental health services.
It will not replace early intervention.
It will not replace contextual safeguarding.
It will not solve poverty, exclusion, racism, trauma, SEND gaps or violence in communities.
The ban should be a line in the sand, not a substitute for support.
What should practitioners take from this?
The most important thing is not to stop asking questions.
If anything, the ban should sharpen our digital safeguarding practice not step back from it.
We should ask:
What platforms is this child using?
Do they have more than one account?
Who can contact them privately?
Are they part of group chats adults do not know about?
Have they seen weapons, fights or threats online?
Are they scared of what might be posted?
Are they being humiliated?
Are they being pressured to respond?
Are images being used to control them?
Are online threats linked to offline behaviour?
Is their sleep being affected?
Can they switch off?
Does being online help them feel connected, or does it make them feel unsafe?
These questions are not extras. They are crucial safeguarding ones.
Not because I think every child online is unsafe.
They are not.
Not because I think parents, schools and practitioners have no role.
They absolutely do.
But because we have reached a point where too much responsibility has been pushed onto children, families, teachers and frontline workers, while the companies designing and profiting from these environments continue to present themselves as if they are only passive hosts.
That is not good enough.
When children are being exposed to violence, grooming, sexual pressure, misogyny, humiliation, threats and compulsive design, we cannot keep calling this individual choice.
When families are stretched, we cannot simply say, “Monitor it better.”
When schools are stretched, we cannot simply say, “Teach another lesson.”
When practitioners are stretched, we cannot simply say, “Spot every digital risk.”
And when platforms are shaping the environment, we cannot let them deny responsibility for the harm that environment creates.
If this were smoking, gambling, unsafe products or dangerous public spaces, we would not rely only on guidance and good intentions.
We would regulate.
The ban must be implemented carefully. It must protect privacy. It must avoid isolating vulnerable children. It must not drive harm into less visible places without adults noticing. It must not become another way of blaming children. And it must not become an excuse for failing to invest in youth work, safeguarding, mental health, family support and early intervention.
But as a line in the sand, I understand it.
Children should not be left to survive systems adults have failed to control.
The real test is not whether the ban sounds tough.
The real test is whether children are safer.
References
Children’s Commissioner for England. (2018). Playing out: A Children’s Commissioner’s report on the importance to children of play and physical activity.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2026a). Social media to be banned for under-16s in landmark government move to give kids their childhood back.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2026b). Fact sheet: New rules to protect children online.
Home Office. (2023). Criminal exploitation of children and vulnerable adults: County lines guidance.
Maza, M. T., Fox, K. A., Kwon, S. J., Flannery, J. E., Lindquist, K. A., Prinstein, M. J., & Telzer, E. H. (2023). Association of habitual checking behaviors on social media with longitudinal functional brain development. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(2), 160–167.
Nansen, B., Jaynes, V., & Kennedy, J. (2026). From phreaking to sneaking: Children’s circumvention of social media age verification systems.
NSPCC. (2025). Data shows how criminals are using private messaging platforms to manipulate and groom children.
Ofcom. (2025). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2025.
Ofcom. (2026a). Children’s passive online measurement report.
Plackett, R., Sheringham, J., & Dykxhoorn, J. (2023). The longitudinal impact of social media use on UK adolescents’ mental health: Longitudinal observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e43213.
Savanta. (2026). Children’s wellbeing online: Social media quantitative report.
Xiao, Y., Meng, Y., Brown, T. T., Keyes, K. M., & Mann, J. J. (2025). Addictive screen use trajectories and suicidal behaviors, suicidal ideation, and mental health in US youths. JAMA, 334(3), 219–228.
Youth Endowment Fund. (2024). What role does social media play in violence affecting young people?
RSS Feed