Campaigners are urging lawmakers to exercise caution regarding the proposed ban on social media for individuals under the age of 16. Recent disclosures from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) indicate that the government has not conducted any internal modelling or analysis to assess the potential impacts of such a ban. The department acknowledged in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the Press Association that “clear, agreed evidence does not currently exist.”
As concerns mount about the implications of social media on the health and safety of young people, pressure is increasing for the government to take decisive action. Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, emphasized the importance of a thoughtful approach. “Parents are rightly demanding action from the government to protect children online, but they want solutions to be effective and safe,” he stated. “It is crucial the government follows all the available evidence about an under-16 social media ban before rushing into it, and the consultation provides an opportunity to do this.”
Government Initiatives and Trials
In recent legislative discussions, MPs have rejected proposals from the House of Lords to immediately restrict access to social media for minors. Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, convened tech executives at Downing Street to address the ongoing risks children face on these platforms. While he acknowledged the need for action, he could not guarantee that measures would be implemented by summer. He remarked, “In a world in which children are protected, even if that means access is restricted, that is preferable to a world where harm is the price of participation.”
The government is currently piloting various measures aimed at curbing young people’s social media usage. These initiatives include app bans, time restrictions, and overnight curfews, all part of a broader strategy to enhance online safety. Approximately 300 teenagers are participating in a six-week trial designed to test these different restrictions, while ministers are also exploring options similar to Australia’s proposed ban on under-16s.
These trials are intended to contribute to a more robust evidence base for potential policy changes. However, existing research, such as a report led by Professor Amy Orben from the University of Cambridge, underscores significant gaps in the current understanding of the relationship between children’s mental health and their use of digital technologies. The report highlights the need for high-quality experimental studies to clarify whether reducing adolescent social media use positively impacts mental health.
In its FOI response, DSIT confirmed that it possesses internal research and policy materials on the subject, but these are being withheld under Freedom of Information laws to prevent any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of preliminary evidence. The department expressed concerns that premature disclosure could hinder comprehensive analysis by officials.
Burrows further argued for stronger regulation to address the “addictive and harmful” elements of the online landscape. He noted, “There is limited evidence that bans work and of the balance between the benefits and unintended consequences that may result. Our polling of Australian teens shows it offers a false sense of safety that will leave parents with new challenges and won’t provide the protection they are crying out for.” He advocates for a regulatory approach that targets the root causes of online harm, providing genuine protection for children across social media, gaming, and AI.
A spokesperson for DSIT reiterated the government’s commitment to building a strong evidence base on the effects of social media on children. “We commissioned Dr. Amy Orben to examine the evidence and published her findings earlier this year because building the strongest possible evidence base is central to how we approach this issue,” the spokesperson stated. “This is precisely why we are running a national consultation, a national conversation, and pilots of specific interventions. We are seeking to understand both the views of the public—particularly parents and children—and the impact of interventions before any decisions are taken. We will also be advised by an expert academic panel to ensure that our response is guided by the best evidence available.”
