Under-16 social media ban: popular, but will it work?

The Government wants to draw a new line through childhood: no major social media accounts for under-16s. Not fewer notifications. Not stronger warnings. A ban.

It is a big shift from nudging platforms to behave better towards telling them they cannot serve a whole age group at all. And, as ever with the internet, the awkward bit is not writing the rule. It is making the rule real.

What is being proposed?

On 15 June 2026, ministers announced that under-16s would be blocked from major social media platforms, with the new protections expected in spring 2027 and legislation planned before Christmas 2026.

The Government says it will follow an “Australia” model. The named platforms include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are expected to be excluded.

This is not only about deleting teenage accounts. Ministers also want restrictions on “harmful functions” for under-16s, including livestreaming and communication with strangers. For 16- and 17-year-olds, some restrictions would be on by default. More detail is due in July on possible curfews and breaks from infinite scrolling for under-18s.

Ofcom has been asked to work on how this would be enforced, including age-assurance systems. That is where the policy moves from headline to hard sums.

The public mood: yes, but...

Support is clearly strong. A YouGov poll reported by TechRadar found 76% of Britons, and 77% of parents with under-18s, support the ban.

The Government’s own consultation reported even higher backing: 9 in 10 parents supported an under-16 ban, and two-thirds of young people agreed under-16s should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms. Those figures come from consultation responses, not the same kind of polling sample, so they should not be treated as identical measures.

But support does not mean confidence. The same YouGov polling found only 45% of parents thought the ban would be effective, while 59% of adults thought it would not be very effective at stopping under-16s using social media.

That doubt matters because the current habit is already deeply embedded. Ofcom figures cited in coverage say more than nine in 10 UK 13- to 15-year-olds have their own social media profile, and 80% of 10- to 12-year-olds use social media.

The tricky bits: ID, VPNs and safe spaces

Child-safety groups have broadly welcomed action. The NSPCC called the announcement a “win” for children and parents, while warning that robust age checks, enforcement and action on addictive features are essential.

Critics focus on enforcement and privacy. If platforms must prove users are over 16, will adults need to hand over ID or biometric data? If checks are weak, will teenagers simply use VPNs or move to less regulated spaces?

There are also worries about vulnerable young people who use online communities for support, creativity or education. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has urged monitoring for unintended consequences.

So the country seems to be saying two things at once: children need stronger protection online; and a ban may be messier than it sounds.

BugBen’s early panel is tiny so far — 2 votes, both for the ban. Should social media be banned for under-16s? Have your say on BugBen.