When, in December 2025, Australia implemented the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, it stood alone in placing a nationwide ban on the use of social media by those under sixteen. Now, five months into its implementation, many other countries are following suit.

In March, Indonesia implemented a similar ban on “high-risk” digital platforms, Malaysia has a ban that is expected to come into force later this year and a whole host of European governments, including Greece, France and Norway, are in the early stages of designing, consulting and legislating on social media bans for under-16s.

Here in the UK, the Government is currently consulting on a ban, and Parliament recently passed legislation giving it the power to implement various restrictions on social media platforms.

But what is the rationale behind such bans and are they the only option available?

Protecting future generations

The argument for such bans seems fairly straightforward: proponents argue social media exposes children and teenagers to harmful content and poses severe mental health risks, and companies have not done enough to address these concerns.

Indeed, a recent lawsuit in California found both Meta and Google liable for building addictive social media platforms and damaging the plaintiff’s mental health.

Polling from POLITICO also suggests such bans tend to have majority support, at least in Europe.

A blunt instrument?

Why, then, are many influential organisations, including those involved in children’s internet safety, not fully convinced of an under-16s ban?

For one, the clinical base behind such a ban is far from settled science. Andrew Przybylski, Professor of Human Behaviour and Technology at the University of Oxford, has said “the underlying science linking social media to wellbeing is itself flawed.” A ban, he argued, would not improve the wellbeing of young people nor hold tech companies to account.

There are also early signs from Australia that bans are not as effective as hoped. Surveys, including those commissioned by the Australian government, have suggested social media companies –  upon whom responsibility lies to restrict under-16s from accessing their platforms – are not yet fully compliant and that large numbers of Australian children still have access to these platforms.

And there are further concerns, including from the NSPCC, that bans will push children towards less regulated platforms, where there are fewer protections in place to protect their wellbeing. A social media ban for those under 16 seems also seems to presuppose that the risks of social media evaporate at 16 and that a 16 year-old will be immediately equipped to navigate social media, despite having had, in theory, little to no previous exposure.

There is also the question of the role existing legislation, at least in the UK, can play. The Online Safety Act 2023, for example, makes it incumbent on tech platforms to conduct risk assessments and implement procedures, such as age verification measures, to restrict the spread of illegal content and content harmful to children. Whilst not a silver bullet, with the Act still awaiting its final implementation stage, the Government may want to see how enforcement progresses before deciding on a full ban.

Several other countries, meanwhile, have adopted more layered approaches, in contrast to an outright ban. Germany and Portugal, for example, require parental consent for those aged 13 – 16 to use social media whilst Brazil, alongside this, has placed on a ban on specific addictive features, such as the ability to infinitely scroll and autoplay, and requires effective age verification mechanisms to be put in place by the effected providers.

Government exercising restraint, for now

In the UK, the issue remains unresolved. Whilst there is a significant push from within Parliament, and in particular from the House of Lords, for an outright ban, the Government has so far resisted any immediate implementation.

At present, the Government is relying on the results of a consultation, set to conclude in late May, before it announces any decision, though, perhaps in deference to the urgency impressed on it by the Lords, and indeed by a significant portion of its own backbench, it has already confirmed restrictions – of a degree yet to be determined –  will be put in place, regardless of the consultation’s outcome. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 also received Royal Assent at the end of April, shortly before prorogation, a further indication of how quickly we are likely to see action upon the conclusion of the consultation. The Act gives the Government the ability to limit children’s access to specific features, which the consultation suggests may include infinite scrolling, livestreaming and location sharing.

Wednesday’s King’s Speech, though, chose to elude the issue altogether, suggesting the Government will keep its cards close to its chest in the interim.

Promises made, but can they be kept?

One, often ill-covered, angle of the debate, however, is the impact any such ban will have on young people’s access to information.

The Government has promised to lower the voting age to 16. The Representation of the People Bill, through which such a change will occur, is currently sat in the Report stage in the House of Commons, with proceedings having been confirmed to resume in the new Session.

Meanwhile, we now have a growing wealth of scholarship which tells us that a significant portion of, if not most, young people, use social media as their main source of news.

How, therefore, will the Government – and, in particular, any Labour backbenchers supporting both a social media ban and the lowering of the voting age – justify removing key sources of information for young people as they come of electoral age? We often think of disenfranchisement in very overt terms, but a ban may inadvertently usher it in through the back door.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez was labelled a ‘tyrant’ by X owner Elon Musk when he announced his intention to introduce an outright ban. No stranger to pejoratives from the billionaire, Starmer is unlikely to be swayed by any similar jibe. But there are real reasons, and tangible alternatives, behind why the Government continues to defer judgement as the evidence unfolds.