Thousands of people think kids under 16 should be banned from social media completely (Image: PA)Tens of thousands of people have called on the government to introduce a major ban for everyone under the age of 16.
More than 100,000 people have signed a petition calling for children under 16 to be banned from using social media in the UK.
It comes as campaigners have warned that sites like TikTok and Snapchat are doing huge harm to youngsters.
MPs are now set to debate the issue after nearly 130,000 people signed the petition warning that social media “is having more of a negative impact on children than a positive one”.
Campaigners are calling for the UK to follow in Australia’s footsteps and bring in a complete ban on social media for anyone under 16.
The UK government has said it is currently “not minded” to do introduce a complete ban. However, technology secretary Peter Kyle has previously said it is “on the table” as an option.
The popular petition was started by mum Kim Campbell, who says she believes a ban would help combat online bullying, protect children from fake posts and limit exposure to harmful content.
Campaigners are worried about the effects of social media on children under 16 (Image: Getty Images)Dr Becky Foljambe, founder of advisory and campaign group Health Professionals for Safer Screens, told the Mirror: “I think social media is intrinsically bad for children’s wellbeing under that age.”
She added: “A teenager is extremely lucky to get to 16 and the only problem they’ve had is opportunity cost. I don’t think I know one family who can say the biggest problem has been simply that. They’ve been doing that and nothing else.
“Most people I know have had a terrible incident with cyberbullying, or not being able to get it out of their hands for them to go to sleep, low self-esteem and body image issues or even involvement with the police. The opportunity cost is the least of their worries, and that is still enormous.”
Dr Foljambe said it is “scientific fact that their brains are not fully developed or adequately developed enough to be able to actually moderate their use”.
She said that while content relating to eating disorders, self-harm or misogyny is clearly harmful, “the insidious scroll of repeated images of a supposedly perfect body or perfect skin or perfect life or perfect job” is also dangerous.
Dr Foljambe said there has been too much “stalling and discussing and procrastinating” and the flagship Online Safety Act is not anywhere near strong enough.
“We’re waiting and waiting for anything to actually start happening around age verification and any meaningful change to stop these kids getting on the harmful content areas of social media,” she said.
“The rare times Ofcom do impose fines, they are minuscule compared to the profits these companies are making.”
Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation – set up in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life after viewing thousands of dangerous images online – said he does not back a ban.
He told the Mirror: “We share the concerns of families up and down the country who are fed up with the unacceptable harm children face online but a social media ban risks causing more harm than good.
“A ban now would mean regulation effectively put on hold and young people facing a cliff edge of harm when they turn 16, with children being exposed to more harm not less in both the short and long term.
“The Prime Minister can best stand up for UK children and families by bringing in a strengthened Online Safety Act that comprehensively protects children, rather than tinkering at the edges with unworkable measures.”
In November Australia’s Parliament backed the world’s strictest social media rules, banning under 16s from setting up accounts. Tech firms face fines of up to £25million if they fail to comply.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said at the time: “We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs.”