Image credits: Performance Digital

Following the implementation of the world’s first social media ban for young people in Australia in December 2025, British Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has established a three-month consultative body which will consider the relative merits of implementing a similar ban for British under-16s. 

The body (backed by the support of 60 Labour MPs) will sit in the House of Commons, and will ‘seek views from parents, young people and civil society’ on the potential impact of such a ban. The creation of this consultative body comes in the immediate aftermath of the Lords voting in favour of a blanket ban for British teens. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also asserted her party would proceed with a social media ban for under-16s, if elected. 

The polemic debate surrounding this issue is of the same ilk as the controversy over Labour’s smoking ban (for those born after 2009) in the 2024 Tobacco and Vapes Bill. A compelling argument is made by those who argue in favour of the ban for the improvement of teenage mental health. However, what is made apparent by experts such as Professor Amy Orben (leader of the University of Cambridge’s Digital Mental Health programme), is that ‘there is no strong evidence’ that a blanket ban would help the government achieve its desired effect. 

Two months after the implementation of the ban, its effects Down Under are ambiguous. The data collected by the Australian government prior to the passing of the law certainly indicated that increased regulation of social media was required. 70% of Australians aged 10-15 have been exposed to ‘harmful’ content online (with a similar proportion of 66% in the UK). 

Supporters of the law praise the initiative of Australian PM Anthony Albanese in his devising of the finer details of the ban. Instead of directly punishing children and parents for disobeying the ban, the social media companies themselves (TikTok, X, Instagram etc…) can be fined up to A$49.5 million (£25 million) for not taking ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent young people accessing their platforms. 

Nevertheless, there is clear evidence to support the most pertinent concern of those who oppose the potential ban in the UK: it is easy to circumvent. In the first few days of the ban a meagre 550,000 accounts were blocked, with numerous accounts of young Australians setting up fake accounts, downloading VPNs, and entering joint accounts with their parents (many of whom are happy to help their children discretely evade the ban). Moreover, in doing so, under- 16s are more vulnerable to the very unregulated content the Australian government are attempting to protect them from! 

Importantly, the emerging results of the ambitious experiment undertaken by Albanese and company, foreshadow the efficacity (or lack thereof) of a potential ban in the UK. The benefits of passing such a law do not sufficiently outweigh the drawbacks to make it worthwhile.

The intentions of the Labour government (to safeguard the mental health of future generations) are admirable, and general improvement of mental health was one of their most appealing manifesto pledges. Yet it is short-sighted of them to ignore the well-known fact that a blanket ban conveys authoritarian overtones against which those affected are sure to rebel. Perhaps a more nuanced solution is to create better protected, beta versions of social media platforms akin to YouTube Kids.

Regardless, in a world where an individual’s freedom to scroll mindlessly through brain-rot reels for hours on end is now considered a fundamental human right, the government will continue to face fervent opposition to the mere notion of a UK-wide ban.