{"id":64444,"date":"2026-06-16T21:22:09","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T21:22:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/64444\/"},"modified":"2026-06-16T21:22:09","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T21:22:09","slug":"can-the-uk-social-media-ban-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/64444\/","title":{"rendered":"Can the UK Social Media Ban Work?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Australia banned teens from social media in December. Now, the United Kingdom has followed with an even more restrictive policy<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But Northeastern University psychologist Rachel Rodgers said that focusing on improving rather than banning the fast-moving world of social media technology may be a more effective way to promote healthy social media habits.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the difficulties is that legislation is always reactive to technology,\u201d said Rodgers, who studies socio-cultural influences<\/a> on body image and eating concerns. \u201cIt is often more helpful to anticipate changes and be collaborative as things are rolling out, rather than trying to fix them afterwards.\u201d<\/p>\n

Australia enacted the world\u2019s first social media ban for children under 16 at the end of 2025, cutting off young teens\u2019 access to platforms, including X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and Reddit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Teens are resourceful, however; and the ban has been criticized as \u201ca flop,\u201d<\/a> after a March report showed<\/a> that around 7 in 10 parents said that their child still had an account on Facebook (63.6%), Instagram (69.1%), Snapchat (69.4%) and TikTok (69.3%).\u00a0<\/p>\n

On Monday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in a press conference<\/a> that the country would ban users under 16 from social media beginning in spring 2027.<\/p>\n

The plan includes a ban on all the main social media platforms \u2013 Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X \u2013 with separate restrictions on online products such as gaming apps, including removing the option to chat to strangers, according to the Guardian newspaper.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not something I do lightly, and I will not present it as cost-free, as if social media has [brought no] benefits to young people, because clearly that is wrong,\u201d Starmer said, according to media accounts. \u201cBut government is always about choices, and it\u2019s clear to me that a total ban is the right choice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Social media company leaders slammed the ban<\/a>, according to Deadline.<\/p>\n

\"\"It will take time to determine whether social media bans in Australia and in the United Kingdom will work, Northeastern experts John Wihbey and Rachel Rodgers said. Photos by Matthew Modoono\/Northeastern University<\/p>\n

Back to thumbnails<\/p>\n

\"\"\/<\/p>\n

John Wihbey,<\/a> professor of media and communications technology at Northeastern University, said the U.K. legislation \u201cseems to be slightly more aggressive\u201d than Australia\u2019s ban.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rodgers, associate professor of applied psychology at Northeastern, agreed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rodgers noted that while the Australian ban focuses on whether teenagers younger than 16 can create accounts on social media platforms, the U.K. legislation also prohibits certain social media functions. For example, those under 16 cannot livestream themselves, while those under age 18 will be prohibited from using romantic chatbots.<\/p>\n

But Rodgers and Wihbey were unsure whether implementing these bans has been \u2013 or will be \u2013 proven effective.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt may be that some of these [features of the bans] are successful, or they could be functionally unworkable. We just don\u2019t know yet,\u201d Wihbey said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rodgers pointed out that the efficacy of the ban doesn\u2019t just depend on the behavior of those who were kicked off social media; it also depends on whether children who are now 13, for example, adopt and use social media safely and responsibly once they turn 16.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe won\u2019t know it\u2019s effective until there are some data to say, yes, they are using the platforms less, and, yes, we\u2019re seeing these [mental health] concerns decrease,\u201d Rodgers said. That could take years, Rodgers added.<\/p>\n

Wihbey noted that there are also likely to be \u201csecond- and third-order consequences\u201d of the bans in terms of changing cultural behavior and norms.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cYouth of the future may end up adopting different kinds of technologies and habits,\u201d Wihbey said. \u201cIt\u2019s a dynamic space, and we just don\u2019t know how regulation and governance moves may ultimately drive unanticipated consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Rodgers questioned whether age restrictions really solve problems that exist with social media.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI always am regretful with this type of legislation that it\u2019s not designed to ask platforms to change,\u201d Rodgers said. \u201cIt\u2019s restrictive; it\u2019s not legislation that says you need to design a platform in this way for 13-year-olds to be able to use it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because social media can be helpful, Rodgers noted. She noted that it gives youth access to community, enables youth to access content that may be readily available in certain communities and to communicate and forge connections.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the U.K. legislation is \u201can important step\u201d toward using policy to help protect youth from the harmful effects of social media, Rodgers said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that it will be more helpful for future legislation to move away from approaches that are just prohibitive towards approaches that are more creative in how to promote online spaces where users will be safe and where they can still reap the benefits that the technology affords,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Australia banned teens from social media in December. Now, the United Kingdom has followed with an even more…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":64445,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[4],"tags":[15660,30582,5,6],"class_list":["post-64444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-uk","tag-faculty","tag-social-media-regulations","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@UnitedKingdom\/116761889503268465","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64444\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}