The social media ban for under-16s will help teens connect in the real-world

For an alternative view see here.

Last week, teenagers across the country reacted with a mixture of disbelief and mild horror as the Prime Minister announced plans to ban social media for under-16s.

In a video that has since gone viral, a schoolgirl was asked what she would do with all the time she would now have free. “Stare at a wall,” she replied, gazing wistfully into the distance as if she were already practising.

There is no doubt that this policy will be difficult for many young people. For a generation raised online, social media is not simply entertainment; it is where many friendships now take place. I know this first-hand. A decade ago, I was 16, and I spent many unhappy hours doomscrolling rather than cultivating real-life friendships. I regret it.

For too long, children’s safety has come second to the interests of major technology companies

Yet if adults struggle to resist the pull of infinite scrolling and algorithmically curated feeds, how can we reasonably expect children to cope?

That question lies at the heart of the government’s decision. Following a consultation that received more than 116,000 responses, with over 90 per cent of parents reportedly supporting restrictions, ministers have proposed banning under-16s from major social media platforms and placing responsibility on technology companies to enforce age limits.

Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation argues that childhood has shifted from being play-based to phone-based. Over the same period, children’s mental health has deteriorated dramatically. In England, rates of probable mental disorder among children aged 5–16 rose from around one in nine in 2017 to one in six by 2020. By 2023, around one in five young people aged 8–25 were experiencing a mental health difficulty.

When platforms repeatedly fail to protect children, government intervention becomes a legitimate public protection measure

The concerns extend beyond mental health. The tragic death of Molly Russell as a result of her consumption of suicide-promoting social media content remains a stark reminder of the consequences when vulnerable children are exposed to harmful online content.

For too long, children’s safety has come second to the interests of major technology companies. When platforms repeatedly fail to protect children, government intervention becomes a legitimate public protection measure.

Critics point out that teenagers can evade restrictions through VPNs, false ages and alternative platforms. Australia’s experience suggests many certainly will. But no law is judged solely by whether it is perfectly enforced. Laws also establish norms and expectations.

Social media can aid connection, but it cannot replace it

This is not about creating a risk-free internet. State intervention cannot protect every child from online harm. Only families, communities and culture can attempt such a task. But government can make it harder for technology companies to treat children as a captive market and easier for parents to raise children away from addictive digital environments.

Read more:

4 ways Christian parents can get ready for the social media ban for U16s 

Why this Christian son thinks social media bans for under 16s will fail

Why this Christian dad welcomes the social media ban for under 16s

Christians can contribute an important perspective to this debate. Scripture teaches that humans are image-bearers: relational beings made for communion with God and with one another (Genesis 1:26 – 27, 2:18). Relationships are not easily replaceable; they are foundational to our everyday lives. Social media can aid connection, but it cannot replace it.

We should also not be surprised that what we consume shapes who we become. Paul warns that “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33). The principle applies online as much as offline.

Churches can help provide the belonging and community that social media has often promised but failed to deliver

That is why the Church has an important role to play. If young people spend less time online, they will need more opportunities for real-world connection. Youth groups, clubs, camps and informal gatherings will become more important than ever. Many teenagers will feel frustrated by these changes; some may feel isolated. Churches can help provide the belonging and community that social media has often promised but failed to deliver. None of this is straightforward, but if there was ever a time to invest in our young people, it is now.

The social media ban is not a silver bullet. Many young people will find ways around it, and broader online safety reforms are still needed. But if we are serious about protecting children and creating healthier conditions for the next generation to grow up in, it is a step worth taking. Not because it solves everything, but because it creates the possibility of something better.

For an alternative view see here.