Under-16s Social Media Ban: Is 16 the Right Age, or Have We Gone Too Far?

By Catarina Santos, Head of Data Protection Consultancy at Data Protection People

Today, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK will ban under-16s from using a range of social media platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. Messaging apps such as WhatsApp1i and Signal will not be affected, and the government says the new rules will come into force early next year. 

I must admit that my first reaction was good and before anyone jumps to comments, I will explain why. 

I work in data protection and spend a lot of time helping organisations think about how they protect children and young people. The reality is that we’ve all seen the stories: children being exposed to content they shouldn’t be seeing, dangerous online trends, cyberbullying, grooming, unrealistic pressures about appearance and lifestyle, and spending far too much time scrolling. 

None of this is new and none of it should be ignored… So I completely understand why the government feels it needs to do something (particularly when this is already a given for so many other countries).  

Where I’m less convinced is whether banning under-16s from social media is the right solution. 

Also, I couldn’t help but notice that WhatsApp and Signal have been excluded. If the concern is protecting children online, does it really make sense to ban Instagram and TikTok whilst allowing access to private encrypted messaging services? 

Some of the most concerning online harms don’t happen in public comment sections. They happen in private conversations, private groups and increasingly through AI-powered tools that operate away from public view.

But is 16 the right age?

This is where I’m unsure.  I understand why the government has chosen 16, but I’m not sure if I agree with it. Other countries have gone down different routes. Australia has introduced a ban for under-16s, whilst parts of the US, including Florida, have set the age lower. That alone shows there isn’t a clear answer to this. 

By that age, most young people already have phones: they’re messaging friends, using technology for school, watching videos, gaming and spending a large part of their social lives online. Whether we like it or not, technology is part of growing up. 

For me, the question is whether keeping young people off social media until 16 actually helps them, or whether it simply delays them learning how to use these platforms safely. 

I absolutely support stronger protections for children online. I’m just not convinced that 16 is the right place to draw the line. 

Will a ban actually solve the problem?

This is probably the part I struggle with most. I don’t think many teenagers are suddenly going to stop using social media because a law tells them to (or parents or schools). 

If anything, they’ll find ways around it! Teenagers are usually far better with technology than most adults and where there’s a will, there’s usually a way. 

My concern is that we’re focusing so much on the age limit that we’re missing the bigger issue: the conversation seems to be about keeping children off social media, but not enough about why social media can be harmful in the first place. 

If a platform is exposing children to harmful content, encouraging them to spend hours scrolling, or creating pressures around appearance and popularity, does that suddenly stop being a problem when someone turns 16? I’m not sure it does. 

That’s why I’m not convinced that a ban on its own is the answer. It may help, and it may reduce some risks, but I don’t think it deals with the reasons why so many people are worried about social media in the first place. 

For organisations, I don’t think this announcement should come as a surprise. Children’s privacy and online safety have been high on the agenda for regulators for a long time. If your organisation provides services that children can access, you should already be thinking carefully about how you collect and use their information. 

The proposed ban doesn’t change that. If anything, it reinforces the direction of travel and the expectation that organisations put children’s interests first. 

If you’d like to explore these themes further, I’d really recommend a listen to Shared Screens, Split Realities: Rethinking Online Safety Together from UCL’s Grand Challenges series. It’s a thoughtful discussion covering social media, mental health, regulation, digital literacy and the lived experiences of young people, including neurodivergent communities, and it touches on many of the same questions I’ve raised here about how we build a safer, more inclusive digital world without simply shutting the door on it. UCL Grand Challenges does excellent work tackling issues like this through interdisciplinary research, and this episode is well worth thirty minutes of your time. You can listen to it on SoundCloud.

My view

I can see both sides of the argument. I understand why the government has taken this step and I agree that something needs to be done to better protect children online.  

What I’m less sure about is whether banning under-16s from social media is the answer. For me, the bigger question is whether we’re focusing on the right thing. If social media is causing harm to young people, shouldn’t we also be asking much more of the companies behind these platforms? A teenager doesn’t suddenly become immune to harmful content on their 16th birthday. 

That’s why I think this conversation needs to be about more than age limits. 

What do you think?

I’d be interested to hear what others think. Is 16 the right age? Should it be younger? Or is the focus on the wrong issue altogether? 

If your organisation provides services for children or young people and you’d like to talk about the data protection side of things, feel free to get in touch with our team at Data Protection People. 

 Catarina Santos is Head of Data Protection Consultancy at Data Protection People and co-hosts the Data Protection Made Easy podcast. She has a background in children’s safeguarding through data protection and works with clients across multiple sectors on privacy compliance, risk and strategy.