0 comments
pack it up, it’s over
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to ban social media for under-16s in the UK, starting next year. With Gen Z relying so much on digital communication, could we be depriving young people of niche communities, education, and self-expression?
If you’re under 16, social media is about to become a lot more inaccessible and dull, at least in the UK. This week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to ban most online platforms for teenagers and schoolchildren, barring them from accessing popular sites including Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and even YouTube.
While the logistics of its enforcement remain vague, we do know that most people in the UK (if they’re of legal age) will need to provide proof of ID to access social media. Presumably, it will work similarly to the UK’s recent Online Safety Act crackdown on explicit content, which now requires viewers to pass an age check before they’re granted access to pornographic sites.
Australia was the first to test a ban for children late last year, blocking all the major platforms and deleting over one million previously held accounts.
It was seen as an experiment, with its rollout being closely watched by the rest of the world. Now, regulation appears to be emerging globally: France is proposing similar rules and age verification systems, Denmark is discussing stronger limits, and Norway is planning to raise the minimum social media account creation age to 16. Debate is also ongoing in the US, with several states having already introduced youth online safety laws that require age verification and parental consent.
Responses to the news have been mixed. Supporters say that social media has become too addictive, algorithm-centric, and harmful for children, citing studies that show the link between screen time and heightened anxiety. We’ve written many times about Gen Z and their struggles with mental health issues, particularly loneliness and body dysmorphia. The rise of manosphere content, ‘looksmaxxing,’ and harmful content can all be attributed to social media, where conversation has been largely unregulated across the board, at least until recently.
Thanks to the rise of short-form video and a switch to personalised, algorithmic feeds, we no longer use platforms solely to connect with our friends. Instead, we’re glued to addictive content for most of the day, watching influencers and creators that shape our opinions and worldviews rather than traditional news outlets. Tech companies have deliberately designed their platforms to encourage endless scrolling, hooking users in from an early age and creating a climate in which outrage, negativity, ‘ragebait,’ and divisiveness are championed.
That isn’t just our opinion, either. In 2021, the Wall Street Journal published a landmark investigation called ‘The Facebook Files’ that found Meta to be fully aware of the harm it causes to users, especially teenagers. The company was actively promoting polarising content for profit while also disregarding data that outlined the anxiety, depression, and body image issues that stem from using its products.
The results of this business model have been widespread and alarming.
As previously mentioned, Gen Z are consuming tons of self-image content, obsessing over idealistic beauty standards and ‘maxxing’ various aspects of their lives to become an idealised version of themselves. This has coincided with wider changes in Gen Z behaviour, including less drinking, fewer nights out, and increased anxiety around identity and self-image. Not all of these behaviours can be entirely linked to social media, of course, but it is a huge influence.
Parents, in particular, appear to be incredibly supportive of the new legislation. A poll by Opinium found that 72% approve of the social media ban, compared to 66% of all adults. The majority believed that restrictions would ‘reduce online harm caused to young people’ and would have ‘positive effects on young people’s mental health.’ A survey by Netmums also reported that 92% of its community approved of the ban, citing concerns over screen time and wellbeing as major factors.
Equally, though, critics are suspicious of the UK government’s intentions, accusing politicians of peddling a surveillance state and distrusting the public. There are very pressing questions around the law’s enforcement and concerns over which third-party companies will be holding sensitive information, particularly as data leaks seem to happen often. Should we trust Starmer with our ID and face scans? Do we even have a choice? Privacy seems to be on the back burner with these new rules, as is often the case in the UK, critics argue.
What do teenagers think? The BBC and The Guardian interviewed schoolchildren in anticipation of the ban, who gave a decidedly more mixed response compared to their parents. Many acknowledged the pitfalls of screen time and social media, but were sceptical of a blanket ban and felt that adults fundamentally misunderstand how teenagers use the internet. YouTube, in particular, would be missed as a key tool for learning and entertainment.
“Parents, in particular, appear to be incredibly supportive of the new legislation. A poll by Opinium found that 72% approve of the social media ban.”
We know too that Gen Z and Gen Alpha use social media to express themselves, connect with others, find solace in niche social groups, and carve out independence from their parents.
There is worry that the age cap is too high; by 16, children are often working, forming political opinions, and are expected to start taking on some adult responsibilities. Restricting online access so heavily could limit their ability to actually engage with the real world, especially as nearly every facet of modern society requires digital literacy and an understanding of the internet.
Perhaps the general mood of young people can be summed up by this moment during a televised BBC interview, where a teenager was asked what she would do with her spare time. With a deadpan expression, she replied, ‘stare at a wall.’ Her class was also asked to raise their hands if they ‘welcomed the ban,’ to which none of them moved. Another girl described the law as ‘authoritative and unnecessary,’ pointing to the responsibility of parents rather than social media apps themselves.
It’s clear that the mood is far from positive.
Alongside parental responsibility, critics also point out that a universal ban acts as a surface-level measure that doesn’t tackle the root of the problem: algorithmic, addictive user experiences that foster toxicity and exploit human psychology. Should governments be doing more to address big tech firms that have unprecedented power and influence over global politics, democratic processes, culture, and communication? Elon Musk’s turbulent takeover of Twitter (rebranded to X) is evidence enough that change can happen, for good or bad.
It’s a question of regulation over restriction, and with no specific, logistical details on how the new law will be enforced, many young people remain doubtful about its effectiveness. We’ll need to see whether it works, but it’s more likely that teenagers will simply download VPNs and find novel ways to circumvent any firewalls when push comes to shove. The kids are far smarter than many adults give them credit for, after all.
See also:
- Why Gen Z is rejecting perfection (and Steven Bartlett)
- If Gen Z drink less, why are Buzzballz booming?
- The ‘bedroom generation’: is Gen Z being pushed out of work?
