On 21st January 2026 the House of Lords voted in support of Lord Nash’s amendment to the ‘Children, Schools and Wellbeing Bill’, which would ban the use of social media for children under the age of 16. A few days previously, on 19th January, the Government announced that it was launching a consultation on the matter. However, we are still awaiting from the Government the full details of the consultation and how to respond.
Many educationalists believe that a social media ban, following the ban on smartphone use in schools, would be of inestimable benefit for children’s development, as well as learning. Social media is designed to be addictive; to entrap children and adults in repeated use, through inducing reliance on the repeated ‘dopamine’ hits from ever changing screens and content, which can materially affect the developing brain. Two countries have already banned it: Australia for under-16s, and France for under-15s.
Social media, it is argued, also entraps children in digital ‘silos’ and detracts from their ability to mingle, interact socially and personally, and develop normal relational skills. Studies are starting to show it has had influence on the exponential rise in ADHD and anxiety, especially among the young. Social media, along with internet use, which modern smart phones encourage, are the gateways to pornography and online gambling, and also open children up to the possibility of contact with adult strangers, putting them in danger. Supporters of a ban contend that the levels of peer pressure children face make it very hard for parents to police their social media use, and say a formal ban is the only way to fully protect children. They also say it is crucial to ban social media for under-16s, as up to this age very critical physical, mental and psychological developments in the child are still taking place.
Given these issues, it is easy to see why a Government led ban on social media use might be popular among parents. However, opponents of a ban argue that it is important to consider the unintended consequences of such a move. For example, one proposal is a ‘curfew’ for young users meaning that an external authority would be active in controlling internet usage in private homes. Whatever the form it takes, it would be a top down, Government-led intervention into our lives; however well intended, this intervention may undermine parental responsibility and autonomy. Why should the State usurp the parents’ role in determining what is good or not for our children. It is argued that social media, along with online gaming chat, is just a contemporary means of social interaction for children, who can now more easily join groups and communities with friends and peers who share their interests.
The Online Safety Act (2023) means that companies must take steps to verify the ages of users to protect them from harmful content. There are several ways that this can happen, such as using credit card data or facial recognition. If the social media ban comes into force, we can expect to see more requests for our data and even something approaching a ‘digital ID’ to prove that users are old enough to use a particular website or app. Such extensive data gathering might raise questions about data security, and what that data will be used for long-term, with some form of digital ID extending into the adult population.
In short, while most parents and teachers can agree that unfettered use of social media is bad for children, there is at least a discussion to be had and questions to be raised about the unintended consequences of the proposed social media ban. Parents and their children can engage with this debate by responding to the Government consultation when available. ParentPower will keep you informed and alert you when the consultations opens.
ParentPower Team
