Well, not yet anyway. If you’ve seen the viral news clip of a schoolgirl announcing her weekend plans were to stare at a wall then you, like most the nation, might have been misled. On the 18th of June the UK Government announced plans to ban under-16s from using ‘high risk’ social media. The new law will come into force in Spring 2027, subject to the legislative and implementation process. Platforms will have to stop offering their services to those aged 15 and younger.
‘Platforms’ include TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and even YouTube. The intention is to prevent children being exposed to algorithmic feeds, stranger contact, or harmful content. It’s essentially a way to put a watershed or PG rating on social media, which is currently largely ungoverned in that respect.
It is also part of a wider Online Safety Act. Social Media companies already have a duty to reduce or remove illegal content and protect children from harmful media. This means stronger age checks, default safety settings, limiting contact from strangers, restricting livestreaming, and potentially targeting addictive design features such as infinite scroll. So, much of the change will be in the design of the platforms themselves!
To find a comparison, we can look to Australia, where under-16 social media restrictions have been in effect since 2025. Platforms there had removed access to 4.7 million under-16 accounts by mid-December 2025!
Early feedback on this is a mixed bag. Supporters say it has forced platforms to act and has given parents a clearer national rule to point to. Critics say children are still finding ways around it, enforcement is uneven, and bans can push young people towards less regulated spaces. A recent academic paper based on focus groups with 12–16-year-olds in Australia found that young people often saw the ban as unfair and ineffective, and described learning how access controls worked and how peers could evade them. A good way for young people to develop digital and cyber control skills, but a bad outcome on utilising them…
Back in the UK, many parents appear supportive of a stronger age limit; around 90% of parents supported a minimum age of 16. Young people’s responses are again more mixed; some agree social media is addictive or harmful, while others argue a blanket ban is unrealistic, patronising, and cuts off creative, social, educational, or support networks.
The overall criticism is that a blanket ban on anything often leads to the ‘thing’ still existing but in less restricted and potentially even more harmful domains. It can also lead to a false sense of security for those who presume the ban will be enforced properly and that their children are now 100% safe online. Phone safety should always be a concern, and parents and guardians should always consider device controls, app controls, and good old fashioned open conversations.
Apple
On an iPhone or iPad, you can set up Apple Screen time. Create a child Apple Account (the word ‘child’ is potentially off-putting to your teen…) by navigating to Settings → Screen Time → child’s name, and turn on Content & Privacy Restrictions.
Here you can also set age ratings for apps, restrict explicit content, limit web content, set downtime, set app limits, prevent purchases, and control location/privacy changes.Android
On Android, parents should use Google Family Link. It allows parents to supervise a child’s Google Account, set screen-time limits, use downtime and school-time schedules, manage or block apps, approve downloads and purchases, and lock or unlock the child’s device.
Again, these are a mask for open communication and trust. The top three tips are:
Rather than just setting these restrictions, sit down and explain why you’re doing this. Online content can be damaging and age inappropriate. Ultimately, a child with no restrictions who is on their phone next to you is safer than a child in their room working a way around your firewalls.
Location sharing, messaging strangers, and livestreams present the biggest opportunities for inappropriate content or, worse, inappropriate contact to happen.
The message of ‘that screen will damage your eyes’ isn’t going to work. How much time do they see you spending on your own phone? The conversation is around being honest; who are they talking to, what images have they seen, do they know who to talk to if something does go wrong? Empower your child to navigate the world around them, and their phone and online presence.
A ban may be a necessary line in the sand, but it cannot be the whole safeguarding strategy. The stronger argument is about shared responsibility. The UK Government sets the ground rules, but parents set the boundaries, schools teach media literacy, and young people feel supported and included, rather than patronised and excluded.
As a parent or guardian, you may feel pressured to upskill yourself in the digital knowledge required to keep on top of things, but don’t forget that the most important tool in your armoury is the ability to have open and honest conversations with your children.
tom@m-sparc.com
Tom used to work at the KFC in his hometown of Colwyn Bay before it mysteriously burned down. He then spent several years “on the lam” in East Germany, where he worked as an animator in Berlin. When the wall fell, Tom came home.
He enjoys climbing and hates ice-skating.
