Full list of social media platforms to be banned for under-16s in the UK

Those of us who grew up before the advent of technology might fondly remember playing outdoors as children – and lament how the youth of today spend their time staring at their phones.

Soon, however, youngsters will have no choice but to put down their screens once more.

Sir Keir Starmer announced today that children under 16 will be banned from using social media, following in Australia’s footsteps.

Here’s everything we know so far about the upcoming changes.

How will the social media ban for under-16s work?

We still don’t have the policy plan – that will come in July – but the government has given some idea of how the ban will look.

Starmer said that the ban won’t mean a child can never log onto Instagram ever again, but it will be a lot tougher to do so.

‘They get around other laws,’ Starmer said. ‘But we don’t say, “oh look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let’s not bother banning alcohol sales to children”.’

Social media giants will require users to verify their age from the get-go.

Platforms will also have to prevent children from live-streaming, including on gaming platforms such as Discord.

Strangers won’t be able to contact children under 16 or send disappearing messages, with this setting on by default for anyone under 17.

Overnight curfews and compulsory scrolling breaks for under-18s are also being considered.

How does the ban compare to Australia’s?

Again, the full policy has not been announced yet – but at first glance, it looks a bit tougher.

The Aussie ban uses tools such as checking browsing history or verifying if phone activity aligns with school times to work out a user’s age, rather than requiring stringent age verification.

A platform disables an account if it identifies a user as underage. There is no penalty for the minor using social media, but firms are fined.

Australia’s ban also includes Reddit, Threads, Kick and Twitch.

The UK is also said to be considering banning ‘stranger pairing’, something the Aussies have not done.

Tim Levy, the managing director of global digital safeguarding company Qoria, cautioned against following Australia’s lead.

Most indications are that the law has not been effective at keeping young teens off platforms – seven in 10 parents say their children still use it.

Levy said: ‘Whilst the Australian government touts substantial numbers of kids’ accounts being shut down, the reality has been that modestly determined children have avoided the ban or moved to more dangerous parts of the internet.’

When will the ban come into force and why is it happening?

The government hopes to pass regulations by Christmas, so the prohibition will go into effect by 2027.

There was no intention to restrict social media use when Labour came to power, with Starmer stressing in 2024 he would not go to ‘battle’ to do so.

But the government has faced pressure from politicians and parents worried about manipulative algorithms and alluring push notifications.

A ban prevents young people from seeing harmful content, like eating disorders and violence, or becoming targets of cyber-bullying.

Supporters also point to research that has found addictive social media can worsen mental health conditions and contribute to low self-esteem.

Jennifer Powers, the founder of the campaign group, Unplugged Coalition, said: ‘Childhood is the biggest winner from today’s announcement.

‘Stopping addictive-by-design tech platforms from exploiting our children is a crucial step in reclaiming childhood from the digital world.’

In March, the government opened a consultation that drew more than 116,000 responses.

Nine out of 10 parents backed a minimum age of 16 for access to social media, and 85% said the risks of social media outweigh the benefits.

Antony Walker, the deputy CEO of the trade association TechUK, which supported the consultation, said he’s heard many parents at the school drop-off wishing they could go ‘bam’ and shut down social media.

‘Parents feel they have no control or understanding of what their child’s online world is like,’ he says. ‘But when children go to school, you have no sense of what their life outside of home is like.’

Is anyone opposed to it?

Many critics say that banning youngsters from social media is an idea that comes from a good place. The execution, however, isn’t so good.

Studies show that children suffer from the same issues with or without a phone. Sometimes, it’s less about usage and more about the attitudes teens have about devices.

The bans have not yet been found to be effective, given how novel they are.

A ban also disproportionately affects teens living in remote areas or minority groups who may have found communities through social media.

The Royal Society for Blind Children said that social media is a ‘lifeline’ for blind and partially-sighted young people.

As much as the charity supports the ban, it added: ‘However, we are mindful that this ban risks cutting off vital routes to connection for children who are already too often excluded.’

Another risk is that a ban for some becomes one for all, Rob Jardin, the chief digital officer at NymVPN, said.

‘A free society should be able to protect children without normalising surveillance,’ he added.

‘Once everyone has to prove who they are to speak or read online, that infrastructure doesn’t disappear, it expands.’

What worries Walker, of TechUK, is that politicians see a ban as an easy fix.

Fewer pupils attend after-school clubs, the high street is ‘dying’ and more than two-thirds of council-funded youth centres have closed over the past 14 years amid budget cuts.

‘Are we going to start investing in youth centres and sports fields?’ Walker asks.

‘There are lots of other things that inadvertently drive children indoors, and this raises questions about how we want to bring up young children.’