Children under 16 may be banned from social media – everything you need to know

Children under 16 may be banned from social media as ministers consider a wide range of plans to tackle online safety.

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has made clear he is “open-minded” about all the options on the table when it comes to preventing online harms. The Cabinet minister wants to see the results of work being carried out in Australia, which set out plans to ban under 16s from social media platforms last week. It came after the country carried out a consultation on an age limit of between 14 and 16 for accessing social media.

New legislation calling for the age of internet adulthood to be raised and for phones to be banned in schools have brought the debate to the forefront in the UK. The government is still debating its position on many of the demands made but it is clear that there is momentum both among ministers and the public for new restrictions to be introduced.

The Mirror has answered all your questions about what could change in relation to social media and phones for kids.

What could the law change to?

The new Labour government has made clear that improving online safety for kids is a priority. Tech chief Mr Kyle met with bereaved families of online harms the week after Labour were elected to Government.

A debate around bringing in fresh legislation on the issue was sparked last month after Labour MP Josh MacAlister introduced a private member’s bill proposing new measures to protect children online. Among his demands include raising the age of internet adulthood from 13 to 16, introducing statutory rules to ban phones in schools, strengthening Ofcom’s powers to protect kids and to consider the design of phones for kids under 16.

Private members’ bills rarely become law without government support (see more on that below) – but they do help to propel an issue into public debate. Aside from his bill, Mr Kyle has also signalled strengthening the Online Safety Act. He has already introduced new measures to boost the law including upgrading sexual image abuse online to a priority offence.

Elsewhere he has hinted at the possibility of even stricter measures. In an interview with the Mirror in July, Mr Kyle suggested social media firms that break online safety laws could be banned in the UK. The Cabinet minister told tech firms it is a “privilege” to operate in Britain as he said “nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping the British public safe”. He indicated that it would be a last resort to switch off social media firms as he hopes to find a balance that means the public can benefit from tech products while also being protected online.

Earlier this year Brazil banned Twitter/X from being able to operate in its country after a row over accounts spreading disinformation. Last month it lifted the ban only after the firm paid hefty fines and blocked accounts that were accused of spreading misinformation.

What is Australia doing and will it work?

The UK government is looking to the fast-paced work happening to address social media harms in Australia. Australian PM Anthony Albanese confirmed last week he plans to raise the age of social media to 16 under what it says will be “world-leading legislation”. “This one is for the mums and dads… They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online. I want Australian families to know that the government has your back,” he said.

It is unclear what age verification technology would be used to ensure kids under 16 have no way of using the sites. One recommendation made by the Australia’s online regulator – the independent e-Safety commissioner – would see a third party assess information to check a user’s age. Social media firms would have to show they are taking reasonable steps to enforce the age restrictions.

More widely there have been questions about whether the responsibility should lie with App stores, who could block a youngster from downloading the platform in the first place, or with the social media site, who controls who uses their product. It is often social media firms such as Meta, which owns Facebook, making the calls for the onus to fall on App stories (such as Apple’s or Google’s) rather than itself.

Past attempts at restricting access, including by the EU, have largely been unsuccessful or faced pushback from tech giants. And some children’s campaigners warn an outright ban is too restrictive and instead favour better protections for kids on social media so they can safely learn about and experience online platforms from an early age.

What are the rules already in place?

Most social media firms currently require people to be age 13 or over to use their apps. But research by the UK regulator Ofcom shows this rule is far from being implemented, with 51% of kids under 13 report using social media sites or apps.

In April its study showed more than third (34%) of children aged 3-7 use social media, as do over six in ten 8-11s and over nine in ten 12-17s. Meanwhile nearly a third (30%) of five to seven-year-olds use TikTok, while more than a fifth (22%) use Instagram. At the time the research was published tech companies were accused of a “systemic failure” in enforcing age limits, with 40% of 8-17s admitting to having given a fake age to get access to a site or app.

The Online Safety Act, which introduced new powers for Ofcom to hold social media firms to account, became law more than a year ago but has been slow to have any real impact. Ofcom is not expected to use its new powers to protect kids online until the end of next year at the earliest because of lengthy consultations. When the Act finally comes into effect social media platforms will face large fines of up to 10% of their global revenue if they fail to protect users, particularly children, from harmful content.

The Act was originally proposed by Theresa May in 2019 but it took years to become law due to political chaos and divisions over the scope of the bill. Campaigners have previously accused the Government of watering it down. They also say that UK laws are failing to keep up with the pace of technology and warn that its expected implementation – towards the end of 2025 – is too slow.

What is the government’s view?

Mr Kyle is looking closely at the results to come out of Australia. “I’m really interested in the measures that [Australian] prime minister Albanese is looking at,” he said in a radio interview in September. “You know, there is considerable evidence that social media is harming vulnerable young people. It’s making some young people increasingly vulnerable.”

When it comes to Mr MacAlister’s Bill, the government has showed more willingness to look at age restrictions on kids’ access to social media compared to other measures. No official decision has been made yet but the Government welcomes the debate on the issue and will await the full text of the Bill before it decides whether it will back parts of it.

But No 10 has signalled the Government is not likely to support Mr MacAlister’s proposal on introducing a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools. Asked about the plan last month, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said ministers understood parents’ worries about mobile phone use, but added: “Headteachers already have the power to ban phones in school and many have chosen to exercise this right. So we don’t have plans to legislate in that particular area.”

Asked on Monday if it supported a ban for under 16s using social media, the PM’s deputy spokeswoman said: “It remains the case that the Government’s focus is on the Online Safety Act and the implementation of that and the protections it will bring for children online from next summer. That includes requirements for companies to have highly effective age checks and to change their algorithms to ensure that they’re properly filtering out harmful content from children’s feeds.”

What is the response of campaigners?

Campaigners are split on the issue. For instance Esther Ghey, the mother of the murdered teen Brianna Ghey, has campaigned for social media apps to be banned on phones for under 16s. She has called for a law to ensure phones are “suitable” for kids and for software to alert parents to potentially harmful content their child could be searching. Her 16-year-old transgender daughter Brianna was killed last year by Scarlett Jenkinson, who has watched videos of torture and murder online, and Eddie Ratcliffe.

“So if you’re over 16, you can have an adult phone, but then under the age of 16, you can have a children’s phone, which will not have all of the social media apps that are out there now,” Esther said in February this year. “Also to have software that is automatically downloaded on the parents’ phone which links to the children’s phone, that can highlight key words.”

But Ian Russell the dad of Molly Russell, who took her own life at 14 after seeing harmful material online, has previously warned that “smartphone and social media bans would cause more harm than good and punish children for the failures of tech companies to protect them”.

Asked about the latest debate on age verification of social media, Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, which was set up after Molly’s death, said: “This Government can best protect a generation of children from preventable harm by committing to finish the job and urgently strengthening the Online Safety Act.

“While calls for social media bans are understandable, they risk solving one set of issues but ultimately causing more harm than good. Today’s briefings risk undermining progress on the current Act and will only make the regulator’s job harder. In the years before any proposed ban was passed, regulation would effectively be put on hold and that means children would be exposed to more harm not less.”