The UK’s New Under-16 Social Media Ban Will Cause More Harm Than It Prevents

Recently, politicians in the UK pushed forward with plans to eviscerate privacy and free speech on the internet byannouncing a ban on social mediafor users under 16 that is set to take effect in Spring 2027.

The UK government continues to falsely characterize this policy as a necessary response to growing concerns about online harms for young people. In reality,much like the Online Safety Act, it will cause more harm than it will prevent.

Users of all ages are burdened with proving their age before accessing content, with social media platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X included in the ban. There remainsno reliable, privacy-preserving methodof verifying the age of every internet user andmethods varyfrom one platform to the next.

Young people will not simply be protected from being contacted by adults or endlessly scrolling-they'll also lose access to educational videos on YouTube, local events on Facebook, and potentially cut off from distant friends and family.

Public policy must be effective, proportionate and respectful of fundamental rights. Young people deserve better than a policy built on panic, and all internet users deserve a safe and free internet. A social media ban generates headlines, but it will not solve the problem.

A Brief History of Age-Gating in the UK

Age restriction proposals in the UK date back to a decade ago, when theproposed Digital Economy Billwas put forth to (among other things) restrict young people from accessing pornographic websites. While the Digital Economy Act of 2017 passed without age-based restrictions, it laid the groundwork for later age verification measures.

Over the next few years, age checks for porn websites wereannouncedthen delayedseveral times. But it wasn't until a consultation under the 2016-2019 May government and the 2020 publication of theOnline Harms Whitepaperthat age verification became a broader idea.

In 2023, the UK passed thecontroversialOnline Safety Act, establishing powers that could weaken privacy protections and freedom of expression for internet users worldwide. In July 2025, the governmentimplementedage assurance measures on sites hosting harmful" content.

And despite politiciansaffirming repeatedlythat the Online Safety Act would solve all of the problems with online safety, this year they decided it in fact did not go far enough. American social psychologist andThe Anxious Generationauthor Jonathan Haidt-who hascalled forage-related social media bans around the world, despitesignificantscientific doubtabout his research-met with the UK Health Secretaryin February to push for the ban.

In March,politicians introduced plansfor a social media ban into the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users" of all regulated user-to-user services," to be implemented by highly-effective age assurance measures"-effectively banning under-16s from social media.

When this proposal came before the House of Commons, MPsdefeatedand proposed theirown amendment: enabling the Secretary of State to introduce provisions requiring providers of specified internet services" to prevent access by children, under age 18 rather than 16, to specified internet services or to specified features; and to restrict access by children to specified internet services which ministers provide.

But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators.

The history of this proposal shows that the UK government has repeatedly returned to the same flawed idea: restricting access to online services by requiring age checks for everyone. But the fundamental problems have not changed. There is still no widely available way to verify age online without compromising privacy-but even if there were, broad restrictions on social media will inevitably limit access to lawful speech, and valuable online communities, and arts and culture.

Republished from the EFF's Deeplinks blog.