Should social media be banned for under-16s?
Bans may be spreading around the world - but are they the right thing to do? It's just one of the discussions we'll be having at this year's Living Freedom Summer School.
Since January, when a ban on social media for under-16s in Australia came into effect, countries around the world appear to be rushing headlong into similar measures. French MPs voted to block access for under-15s, while Slovenia, Greece, Germany, Spain, Portugal and others are all making moves to restrict social-media access for minors.
In the UK, this week MPs voted against a social-media ban for under-16s for a second time. Nevertheless, prime minister Keir Starmer has demanded tougher action on internet safety by tech bosses. Digital curfews and time limits on apps are set to be trialled by 300 teenagers across the country. And the government is pushing ahead with a consultation into an under-16s ban, meaning there’s still a real possibility that restrictions on social-media platforms will be introduced in the UK.
Not surprisingly, experts, campaigners, parents and the public are divided on whether bans should be rolled out. So at Living Freedom Summer School we will debate ‘Should social media be banned for under 16s?’ (See details below for how to attend.)
On the one hand, social media is regularly blamed for causing harm to individuals, social fragmentation and political polarisation. With people aged between 18 and 24 now spending an average of six hours a day on social media, many worry about adverse impacts.
In the US, Kaley, a 20-year-old woman (known only by her first name to protect her privacy), won a lawsuit against Google’s YouTube and Meta by arguing that her childhood social-media use led to an addiction that damaged her mental health. With increased rates of anxiety and depression in teenagers, many are convinced time spent on screens must be controlled to curtail potential harms.
Others argue correlation is not the same as causation, and that other factors are at play. Not only is the evidence mixed on the causes of harms, but there are also considerbale benefits to using social media. What’s more, does relying on a blanket social-media ban risk shirking adult responsibility to socialise children - guiding young people to use social media in positive ways that help propel them forward rather than to hold them back?
The damage caused by lockdowns suggest that when we only think in terms of risk and safety, then we risk denying activities that contribute positively to resilience in the long run. And what of the danger of bringing in legislation which allows governments greater control of the information we can access and which opens the door to the state to manage our private conversations and even regulate children’s free time? Are parents right to worry this reduces parental autonomy, and also their authority to shape the teenage years of their own children?
Below, in the article ‘Social Media doesn’t have to undermine human agency’ written for Cutting Takes, Living Freedom coordinator Emma Gilland argues that to blame social media for young people’s alienation and mental health issues is an all too easy way to blame social problems on Big Tech.
FURTHER READING
Why I’ve changed my mind about banning social media for teenagers by Claire Fox and Stella O’Malley
Most Young Australians Successfully Evade the Country’s Social Media Ban by J.D. Tuccille
LIVING FREEDOM SUMMER SCHOOL 2026
Date: 9 - 11 July
Location: Westminster, London
Eligibility Criteria: open to anyone aged 18 to 30
Programme, information and to apply: click here.
Amplifying harm: are we run by algorithms?
Emma Gilland
There is no doubt that social media is a powerful tool. Freya India, a 26-year-old journalist from the UK who has just published her first book, GIRLS®, argues that internet platforms ‘prey on the insecurities’ of young girls, commodifying their misery, trapping them in endless cycles of comparison and immediate attention or gratification. And with the government launching a public consultation on social media bans for under-16s, these arguments have clearly taken hold across the UK.
Even though it is clear that social media platforms are designed to capture attention and exacerbate vulnerability, insecurity and isolation, to treat these as determinative to individual behaviour denies human agency, stripping individuals of the ability to overcome these challenges through regulation and self-control. The move to clamp down on social media, through bans and mass regulation by tech companies and external regulators, is setting a dangerous precedent. One that doesn’t trust people to harness the power of technology and the opportunities it gives us for knowledge, growth and time. Instead, it grants that power to the state.
Not only is the discourse of protection from big tech and technological developments being used to infantilise children, suggesting that they are incapable of managing the rapidly changing nature of information and communication; they are now being used to undermine the agency of adults too. The psychological ‘harms’ of social media, and the power of algorithms, are increasingly being used to account for the falling standard of political communication.
Social media has proliferated to amplify division. But it has proliferated in an already fragmenting society, where common values, social norms and communities were already disintegrating. Individuals who have long been desperate to belong to a group, or some collective endeavour, have moved to echo chambers to fill this void.
‘It has proliferated in an already fragmenting society, where common values, social norms and communities were already disintegrating. Individuals who have long been desperate to belong to a group, or some collective endeavour, have moved to echo chambers to fill this void.’
To read the full article go to Cutting Takes.