After Australia, why is the UK banning social media for under-16s? How will it work?

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to prohibit under-16s from using social media platforms while also tightening rules governing gaming services, livestreaming platforms and certain artificial intelligence-powered tools.

Starmer unveiled the policy on Monday, arguing that the government must intervene to address what many parents, teachers and child-safety advocates see as the harmful effects of excessive online engagement among young people.

"It is clear to me a full ban is the right choice," he said.

Explaining why he believes the measure is necessary, Starmer added, "This will change the conversations that parents have and the expectations of children over time. It will make a huge difference, it will make our children safer, it will make our children happier, it will give them more time, more security, more freedom to grow up, more opportunity".

More from Explainers

Mythos and Fable lesson for India: Sovereign AI is no longer optional

‘Mythos’ and ‘Fable’ deliver a reality check: India needs AI sovereignty and supply-chain resilience

Why has the UK decided to pursue a social media ban now?

Britain has spent years strengthening its oversight of technology companies. Recent measures have included requiring age verification for certain content, placing obligations on firms to modify algorithms, and introducing safeguards designed to stop children from sharing explicit images.

Yet ministers have increasingly concluded that these steps do not go far enough.

The latest proposal comes after months of consultation involving parents, teachers, young people and industry representatives.

The government examined a range of options, including social media curfews, limits on time spent using apps and restrictions on platform features that officials believe encourage compulsive use.

The consultation generated more than 116,000 responses. The findings revealed substantial support among parents for stronger intervention.

More than 83 per cent of parents who took part said they believed the risks associated with social media outweighed its benefits. Meanwhile, 90 per cent backed setting 16 as the minimum age for accessing social networking services.

According to communications regulator Ofcom, around eight in ten children aged between three and 17 have at least one active social media profile. Among children aged 13 to 15, the figure rises to 95 per cent.

The regulator has also found that social media use is increasingly common among very young children. Based on parental reports, 37 per cent of children aged three to five use social media, compared with 29 per cent in 2023.

Those statistics have strengthened arguments among supporters of tougher regulation, who contend that online platforms are becoming embedded in children's lives at increasingly younger ages.

The British prime minister has not always supported a ban. Previously, Starmer had expressed concerns that prohibiting social media use could push some teenagers towards less-regulated parts of the internet.

Another concern was the possibility of creating what he described as a "cliff edge", whereby children would suddenly gain unrestricted access to social media at 16 without having developed the skills needed to navigate online environments safely.

However, several developments appear to have altered the government's position. One factor was Australia's decision to implement a nationwide prohibition on social media use by under-16s.

Another was growing pressure from within Starmer's own Labour Party. Earlier this year, more than 60 Labour MPs reportedly wrote to the prime minister urging him to adopt stronger restrictions.

The government has also cited increasing evidence regarding the impact of excessive online activity on children's wellbeing and mental health. At the same time, parents and campaign groups have continued to press ministers to take firmer action.

Not all child-safety organisations support a ban, however.

The Molly Rose Foundation, established by the family of Molly Russell, a British teenager who died after viewing harmful online material, has argued that a blanket prohibition could prove difficult to enforce and may divert attention from deeper problems related to platform algorithms and online content distribution.

Some psychologists and academic researchers have similarly questioned whether age-based bans alone can effectively address the complex challenges associated with children's online experiences.

How will the UK ban work?

Although the final list of affected services has not been formally confirmed, platforms expected to fall within the scope of the ban include TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.

The Australian model, which British ministers have studied closely, also covers Facebook, YouTube and X.

Current age requirements on most major social media platforms are typically set at 13. However, these thresholds are generally established by the companies themselves rather than by government legislation.

The British proposal would therefore create a legal minimum age that goes beyond existing platform policies. The government's plans are not limited to traditional social media services.

Starmer has also announced restrictions targeting gaming and livestreaming platforms that enable young users to communicate with strangers online.

"Is there a situation in the offline world where you would just let your child pair up with a stranger, an adult that you don't know anything about? No, so we're taking action on that," Starmer said.

According to reports, children under 16 could be prevented from accessing features that facilitate direct communication with unknown adults. Livestreaming functions may also be restricted.

Further proposals reportedly being considered include limits on features frequently criticised as addictive, including endless scrolling systems and automatic video playback.

Restrictions may extend to emerging technologies as well. Under the plans being discussed, under-18s could be barred from using romantic or sexual AI chatbots. Ministers are also examining whether children should face tighter controls when interacting with certain AI-powered conversational systems.

The government is additionally considering measures designed to prevent minors from using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to circumvent online safeguards and gain access to inappropriate content.

Another proposal reportedly under discussion would place time limits on social media use by 16- and 17-year-olds, although no final decision has yet been announced.

How could the government enforce such a ban?

London has indicated that technology companies themselves will be expected to determine users' ages and prevent underage access. Britain already possesses a framework for age verification through the Online Safety Act, which is overseen by Ofcom.

The legislation requires platforms to stop children from accessing certain categories of harmful content, including pornography, self-harm material and content related to eating disorders.

To achieve this, companies are required to use what Ofcom calls "highly effective age assurance".

These mechanisms can involve facial age estimation technologies, digital identity checks, credit-card verification systems, email-based analysis and other tools designed to establish a user's likely age.

Whether the social media ban will require a specific verification method remains unclear. Technology companies have proposed different approaches to age assurance. Some argue that app developers should be responsible, while others believe device manufacturers and app-store operators should play a larger role.

Australia's experience provides some indication of how such systems might operate.

Platforms there have relied on a combination of methods, including behavioural analysis that estimates age based on usage patterns. Other approaches involve selfie-based age estimation systems, identity document checks and, in some circumstances, linked financial information.

The British government has not yet clarified which of these techniques may ultimately be required.

There are also unresolved questions regarding legal challenges. Some observers have suggested that technology firms could seek judicial reviews once legislation is introduced. Such challenges would likely focus on how the policy was developed rather than on Parliament's ability to pass the law itself.

What timeline has Starmer outlined?

According to Starmer, the government already possesses powers that can be used to begin implementing aspects of the policy. Additional regulations are expected before the end of the year.

A full prohibition could then be operational by next spring.

If that schedule is maintained, Britain would become one of the first major European countries to implement a nationwide social media ban covering children under 16.

The announcement comes at a politically significant moment for Starmer, who has faced mounting pressure on several fronts and is reportedly confronting the possibility of a leadership challenge in the coming weeks.

Has Australia's social media ban actually worked?

Australia became the first nation to introduce a nationwide social media ban for under-16s when its law took effect in December. The legislation applies to platforms that allow interaction between users and permit content sharing.

As a result, services including TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X, Instagram and Facebook fall within its scope.

Other services such as WhatsApp and YouTube Kids were not included because they already operate under different content-control arrangements.

The Australian law carries substantial penalties. Major platforms can face fines of up to A$49.5 million (£26.5 million) if they fail to comply.

Authorities estimate that the policy affects more than one million accounts. Evidence regarding its effectiveness remains mixed.

According to Australia's eSafety commissioner, a "substantial proportion" of children under 16 retained existing accounts, created new ones or found ways to bypass age-verification systems, reported The Guardian.

However, the commissioner also reported that a "significant number of social media accounts of children aged under 16" were removed, deactivated or prevented from signing into platforms.

Government figures suggest that more than 4.7 million social media accounts were removed, deactivated or restricted shortly after the ban came into force on 10 December.

Why are other countries following Australia's lead?

Concerns about children's online safety have become a major policy issue across much of the world. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed Britain's announcement and highlighted the need for international cooperation.

"Social media giants operate across borders. By standing together, we can do more to hold them accountable and keep children safe online."

Research published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in April showed that 25 countries either already have social media age restrictions, have enacted legislation introducing them, or are actively considering similar measures.

Because the research was completed several months ago, the total number may now be even higher. Since Australia moved first, the policy concept has spread rapidly.

Spain and Portugal appear among the countries closest to implementing comparable restrictions, with political leaders advancing legislation and policy proposals. Their measures are expected to take effect this year.

France, Malaysia, Denmark, Indonesia, Norway and Canada are also examining or developing restrictions.

Several American states have approved laws aimed at limiting minors' access to social media, although many of those measures remain subject to court challenges.

While 16 has emerged as the most common age threshold internationally, not every country has chosen the same benchmark. Denmark, for example, has considered setting the limit at 15.

What has the reaction been in Britain?

London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan has backed stronger protections for young people online and argued that technology companies should be required to demonstrate that their services are safe for children.

Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza has advocated going even further, suggesting that protections should extend to 16- and 17-year-olds as well because they should not receive what she described as "lesser protection".

Support has also come from the opposition. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch welcomed the government's decision, writing on X, "It is fantastic news that the Government has finally woken up to the dangers of social media for young people. This is an important step in helping parents protect childhood for children."

She added that the Conservatives "welcome this latest Labour U-turn" and would work towards achieving the "best implementation of the policy".

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies