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

Skip to main content

AboutContact

Press

People

Opportunities

IssuesFree Speech

Privacy

Creativity and Innovation

Transparency

International

Security

Artifical Intelligence

Our WorkDeeplinks Blog

Press Releases

Events

Legal Cases

Whitepapers

Podcast

Annual Reports

Take ActionAction Center

Volunteer

Follow EFF

ToolsPrivacy Badger

Surveillance Self-Defense

Certbot

Atlas of Surveillance

Cover Your Tracks

Street Level Surveillance

apkeep

Shop

Donate

DonateDonate to EFF

Shop

Giving Societies

Sponsorships

Other Ways to Give

Membership FAQ

Email updates on news, actions,

and events in your area.

Join EFF Lists

Copyright (CC BY)

Trademark

Privacy Policy

Thanks

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Donate

If you use technology, this fight is yours.Donate today

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

DEEPLINKS BLOG

By Paige Collings and Jillian C. York<br>June 19, 2026

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

Share It

Share on Mastodon<br>Share on Bluesky<br>Share on Facebook<br>Copy link

This week, politicians in the UK pushed forward with plans to eviscerate privacy and free speech on the internet by announcing a ban on social media for 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 remains no reliable, privacy-preserving method of verifying the age of every internet user and methods vary from 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 the proposed Digital Economy Bill was 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 were announced then delayed several times. But it wasn’t until a consultation under the 2016-2019 May government and the 2020 publication of the Online Harms Whitepaper that age verification became a broader idea.

In 2023, the UK passed the controversial Online Safety Act, establishing powers that could weaken privacy protections and freedom of expression for internet users worldwide. In July 2025, the government implemented age assurance measures on sites hosting “harmful” content.

And despite politicians affirming repeatedly that 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 and The Anxious Generation author Jonathan Haidt—who has called for age-related social media bans around the world, despite significant scientific doubt about his research—met with the UK Health Secretary in February to push for the ban.

In March, politicians introduced plans for 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, MPs defeated and proposed their own 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...