Technology UK to Ban Under-16s From TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Other Social Media Platforms

[lokamoka820]

Content source

https://www.ghacks.net/2026/06/16/uk-to-ban-under-16s-from-tiktok-instagram-youtube-and-other-social-media-platforms/

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that children under 16 will be banned from using a range of social media platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X.

The ban is expected to come into effect early next year and places the UK within a broader international effort to strengthen online safety rules for minors.

Services such as YouTube Kids and messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal are not included in the ban. Enforcement will focus on technology companies rather than children directly.

Platforms that do not take sufficient measures to prevent under-16s from accessing their services could face multimillion-dollar fines.

What the UK Social Media Ban Covers for Under-16s​

The platforms covered by the ban include:

• Snapchat,
• TikTok,
• YouTube,
• Instagram,
• Facebook, and
• X (formerly Twitter).
• Platforms like YouTube Kids and messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not included.

The UK is adopting a model similar to Australia's, which last year became the first country to ban under-16s from creating social media accounts.

 

[TairikuOkami]

So UK has decided to return to the dark ages, well that is pretty obvious, when you look at it, still?! In the meantime parents raise toddlers with a tablet. Odd times.
While social media can be easily abused, they are designed to make people more sociable, kids already have too little of that and this will isolate them even more.

 

[RoboMan]

This is extremely wrong and harmful.

This ban treats all online interaction as inherently harmful while ignoring the educational, social, and developmental benefits that many young people gain from digital participation.

For many teenagers, social media is not just entertainment; it's where friendships are maintained, events are organized, hobbies are shared, and communities are built. A blanket ban can isolate younger teens from their peer groups, especially those who struggle socially in person or live in remote areas.

Of course internet brings dangers within, that's a fact. But that's a job for the kid's family/parents, rather than the government's.
There are several tools that the government could provide or facilitate in order to help parents take care of their kids online.
Many security suites also offer parental control modules/apps, that can restrict what the kid watches or uses, who he talks with (even alert the parent when a certain trigger word is written). Gosh you can even set up a timer to block the phone at certain times.

A global ban is unnecessary, ridiculous, and brings more problems than advantages. Actually, it places on the table a much bigger threat: the government's plan to control & moderate opinions. There's no news on the fact that UK's politicians are trying to push online speech regulations. Passing this would be a huge issue in the future.

 

[Halp2001]

The idea of protecting minors sounds reasonable, but experts point out that bans often just push the problem elsewhere. When official platforms are closed off, teens usually find their way into less regulated spaces — from shady apps to even the dark web. And let’s be honest, age checks are rarely bulletproof, so kids will always find ways around them. Even outlets like LBC warn that a weakly defined ban could end up as a very public failure. At the end of the day, it’s less about the ban itself and more about recognizing the practical limits and side effects.

 

[nickstar1]

When I was 13 back in 2007, I was already experimenting with malware, and it’s clear that lawmakers often underestimate what teens are capable of learning. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these teenagers have better practices than certain politicians, maybe even a few in the White House. I'm glad I had such a wonderful childhood meeting people from around the world, but unfortunately, this generation is losing that opportunity i do not agree with any of this...

 

[Zero Knowledge]

So UK has decided to return to the dark ages, well that is pretty obvious, when you look at it, still?! In the meantime parents raise toddlers with a tablet. Odd times.
While social media can be easily abused, they are designed to make people more sociable, kids already have too little of that and this will isolate them even more.

Exactly it's cave dweller Luddite style government intervention and left wing socialism ideology infecting society where they can't control the narrative on social media so they ban it. It will put back kids years and isolate teenagers who don't live in big cities, and will have the opposite effect as it dumb down teenagers in the digital age.

This is extremely wrong and harmful.

This ban treats all online interaction as inherently harmful while ignoring the educational, social, and developmental benefits that many young people gain from digital participation.

For many teenagers, social media is not just entertainment; it's where friendships are maintained, events are organized, hobbies are shared, and communities are built. A blanket ban can isolate younger teens from their peer groups, especially those who struggle socially in person or live in remote areas.

Of course internet brings dangers within, that's a fact. But that's a job for the kid's family/parents, rather than the government's.
There are several tools that the government could provide or facilitate in order to help parents take care of their kids online.
Many security suites also offer parental control modules/apps, that can restrict what the kid watches or uses, who he talks with (even alert the parent when a certain trigger word is written). Gosh you can even set up a timer to block the phone at certain times.

A global ban is unnecessary, ridiculous, and brings more problems than advantages. Actually, it places on the table a much bigger threat: the government's plan to control & moderate opinions. There's no news on the fact that UK's politicians are trying to push online speech regulations. Passing this would be a huge issue in the future.

All valid points and I agree 100%. As I've said many times on here it's the parents job to raise their kids NOT the government. You don't need government intervention to restrict kids socializing on social media because it's the parents job to raise their kids. What are the parents doing anyway? Not looking after their kids obviously. Probably doing drugs and playing video games while giving their children phones and tablets to keep them busy.

The problem is governments deciding what is misinformation and what is not. The people who advocate these restrictive laws want to control people and opinions that criticize them or disagree with their policies. It's a absolute disgrace and a problem of the radical left wing political parties who hate social media because people vent their opposition and vent their frustrations and the left wing governments can't control it so they make laws banning social medias use.

Honestly we may as well go live in where everything is controlled and if you have dissenting views you end up in a gulag or assassinated. It's a slippery slope!

 

[Marko :)]

I actually agree with the UK on this one, though, I wouldn't implement it the way they are implementing it. I really do think that kids under the age of 16 have nothing to do on social media. In fact, I'm strongly in support of banning phones entirely in elementary schools.

It's simple. Go to any elementary school during break(s) and you'll see kids glued to their devices. They don't even talk to each other, blatantly staring at their phones like they are hypnotized. They rather send a message over Instagram or WhatsApp than talk to the kid sitting next to them. Beside, it's been scientifically proven that excessive smartphone use affects kids development.

When I was at elementary school, smartphones weren't even a thing. Only at the 7th or 8th grade, iPhone 4 appeared and just one kid in class had it (though no idea how he got it as they were extremely expensive). We all had dumbphones; most of us never carried it to school (because school was in our neighborhood—5 minute walk from everyone; every neighborhood has elementary school). At that time phone plans were still expensive to the point our parents said to us to send them a text if we needed something, not call them.
What did we do during breaks? Talked to each other, played Tic-Tac-Toe or hangman, joked with each other, ran through the hallways playing ledene babe (ice lady), crna kraljica 1,2,3 (black queen 1,2,3), boca istine (bottle of truth) and similar games. My ex. school also has a giant playing fields; one for football, one for basketball, plenty of grass fields we could go and there weren't any fences—no one ever got lost or hurt despite the road being nearby. Ball would sometimes go on the road, but passers-by would simply give it back. We even went to the school yard to play even when there was no school, or for casual hanging out.

Croatian government actually banned phones in elementary schools and from what we can see, the socializing between kids is back. Various TV channels did reports on the topic of phones in schools and teachers said they noticed kids behaving better, their attention span is improved and they are more active during classes. Banning phones from young age can only have positive effects on kids, not negative.

But Marko... why ban social media???? I bet you had Facebook when you were in 5th grade of elementary school...

And you'd bet right. By the 6th grade every single one of us from class (of 24) had a Facebook account. We all pretty much only had it because of games. Pet Society, Restaurant City, Wild Ones, Friends for sale, Zynga Poker, Rekvizit was a big one. Beside, it was useful as we could also talk with each other from home saving our parents a large phone bill. Back then, you had everyone on Facebook and MSN—that was it. No TikTok, no Snapchat, no Instagram. And the algorithm wasn't programmed to show us negativity all the time and to keep us engaged 24/7. Social media in 2000s was on another level and if was the same today, I'd probably still have accounts there. Today social media only feeds you false information, plays with your feelings and makes you angry because that will keep you engadged. Imagine what would happen if only positive stuff was shown to you—yeah, you wouldn't waste 6 hours per day on it.

And one major difference from that time. You had Facebook, but you couldn't access it from school as your dumbphone had slow and expensive internet access so you could only use it during computer science class or at home—nowhere else. We did eventually get Facebook Zero which we used for texting, but lack of pictures really made it uninteresting so you wouldn't look at it for hours. As much as I hated school, I actually loved the life in the 2000s when tech was limited.

 

[RoboMan]

I actually agree with the UK on this one, though, I wouldn't implement it the way they are implementing it. I really do think that kids under the age of 16 have nothing to do on social media. In fact, I'm strongly in support of banning phones entirely in elementary schools.

It's simple. Go to any elementary school during break(s) and you'll see kids glued to their devices. They don't even talk to each other, blatantly staring at their phones like they are hypnotized. They rather send a message over Instagram or WhatsApp than talk to the kid sitting next to them. Beside, it's been scientifically proven that excessive smartphone use affects kids development.

When I was at elementary school, smartphones weren't even a thing. Only at the 7th or 8th grade, iPhone 4 appeared and just one kid in class had it (though no idea how he got it as they were extremely expensive). We all had dumbphones; most of us never carried it to school (because school was in our neighborhood—5 minute walk from everyone; every neighborhood has elementary school). At that time phone plans were still expensive to the point our parents said to us to send them a text if we needed something, not call them.
What did we do during breaks? Talked to each other, played Tic-Tac-Toe or hangman, joked with each other, ran through the hallways playing ledene babe (ice lady), crna kraljica 1,2,3 (black queen 1,2,3), boca istine (bottle of truth) and similar games. My ex. school also has a giant playing fields; one for football, one for basketball, plenty of grass fields we could go and there weren't any fences—no one ever got lost or hurt despite the road being nearby. Ball would sometimes go on the road, but passers-by would simply give it back. We even went to the school yard to play even when there was no school, or for casual hanging out.

Croatian government actually banned phones in elementary schools and from what we can see, the socializing between kids is back. Various TV channels did reports on the topic of phones in schools and teachers said they noticed kids behaving better, their attention span is improved and they are more active during classes. Banning phones from young age can only have positive effects on kids, not negative.

And you'd bet right. By the 6th grade every single one of us from class (of 24) had a Facebook account. We all pretty much only had it because of games. Pet Society, Restaurant City, Wild Ones, Friends for sale, Zynga Poker, Rekvizit was a big one. Beside, it was useful as we could also talk with each other from home saving our parents a large phone bill. Back then, you had everyone on Facebook and MSN—that was it. No TikTok, no Snapchat, no Instagram. And the algorithm wasn't programmed to show us negativity all the time and to keep us engaged 24/7. Social media in 2000s was on another level and if was the same today, I'd probably still have accounts there. Today social media only feeds you false information, plays with your feelings and makes you angry because that will keep you engadged. Imagine what would happen if only positive stuff was shown to you—yeah, you wouldn't waste 6 hours per day on it.

And one major difference from that time. You had Facebook, but you couldn't access it from school as your dumbphone had slow and expensive internet access so you could only use it during computer science class or at home—nowhere else. We did eventually get Facebook Zero which we used for texting, but lack of pictures really made it uninteresting so you wouldn't look at it for hours. As much as I hated school, I actually loved the life in the 2000s when tech was limited.

Marko, I value and respect your opinion. You make really good points. Nevertheless, I think you're making two separate arguments that shouldn't be treated as the same thing.

I completely agree that phones can be banned in schools. The purpose of school is education and social development. If phones are distracting students, reducing attention spans, and replacing face-to-face interaction during breaks, schools have every right to restrict them on school property. That's no different from schools banning toys, video games, or other distractions during class hours.

What I don't agree with is extending that logic into people's homes.

A school deciding what students can use during school hours is one thing. The government deciding that a 15-year-old cannot access social media at all, even under parental supervision at home, is something else entirely.

The problem isn't that social media exists. The problem is how modern platforms are designed. If TikTok, Instagram, and similar platforms use addictive algorithms, endless scrolling, and engagement-driven content, then regulate those features. Don't ban every form of online social interaction for everyone under 16.

Also, social media isn't just doomscrolling. Many teenagers use it to keep in touch with friends, participate in hobby communities, learn skills, discuss schoolwork, follow sports, gaming, technology, art, music, and other interests. For some kids, especially shy ones, disabled ones, or those living in isolated areas, online communities can be an important part of their social lives.

I grew up before smartphones too, and I have great memories of that era. But "my childhood was different" isn't automatically proof that every new technology should be prohibited. Every generation grows up with tools the previous generation didn't have.

So yes, ban phones in elementary schools if they are harming learning and socialization. But once a kid goes home, I think that decision should primarily belong to parents, not the government.

 

[lokamoka820]

This conversation becomes more interesting with every contribution. Although each member holds a different viewpoint, each perspective also seems valid in its own right.

I would like to draw attention to those who believe that social media plays a crucial role in shaping a child's personality and influencing their communication with friends and peers. It's important to note that the ban does not cover all online social media platforms; only the most popular ones (or perhaps, the most harmful). Unfortunately, these specific platforms have repeatedly demonstrated negative effects, not only on children but on society as a whole.

Therefore, I hope this ban encourages the adoption of better alternatives, such as Mastodon and other open-source, decentralized platforms that don’t serve hidden agendas like Facebook or X.

As for the government, I doubt that its primary motivation behind this ban is truly the concern for children. There are likely other, less transparent reasons driving this decision.

 

[SeriousHoax]

He probably wants to be remembered as the most unpopular UK PM of all time

This week British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been fighting for his political survival as more than 80 members of his own party have asked him to step down, and recent polls show him to be Britain’s most unpopular leader on record.

Why is the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer so unpopular?

This week British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been fighting for his political survival as more than 80 members of his own party have asked him to step down, and recent polls show him to be Britain’s…

www.france24.com

 

[Marko :)]

What I don't agree with is extending that logic into people's homes.

A school deciding what students can use during school hours is one thing. The government deciding that a 15-year-old cannot access social media at all, even under parental supervision at home, is something else entirely.

Valid point. But if we're going to complain about government deciding what can 15-year-old visit at home and what can't, couldn't we apply this as well to alcohol, smoking and gambling?

Why should government limit if 15-year-old can consume alcohol, smoke or gamble at home? Isn't the education also parent's job what their son/daughter can have and do and what can't?

I get what you're saying and there are some good talking points. I still think that when talking about restrictions we should have same criteria for all things, not just certain.

The problem isn't that social media exists. The problem is how modern platforms are designed. If TikTok, Instagram, and similar platforms use addictive algorithms, endless scrolling, and engagement-driven content, then regulate those features. Don't ban every form of online social interaction for everyone under 16.

I agree. These alghoritms should be public and not strictly hidden secret. We should know exactly how they work and what is going on. It's the only way to avoid harmful things being shown to kids.

Alghoritm is stricly set to divide people, fill their brains with useless false infomation instead presenting them with the valuable things. Social media could be wonderful tool but as long as it's set to divide us with us vs them governments will look a way to keep kids away from it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't fix the core problem, just shoves it under the carpet. The only solution is to regulate alghortms and social media comanies which is unlikely to happen. Maybe only in the EU, but maybe.

Also, social media isn't just doomscrolling. Many teenagers use it to keep in touch with friends, participate in hobby communities, learn skills, discuss schoolwork, follow sports, gaming, technology, art, music, and other interests. For some kids, especially shy ones, disabled ones, or those living in isolated areas, online communities can be an important part of their social lives.

Let's not fool ourselves. While social media can be a great tool, majority of the content is garbage and that's what kids look at and what keeps their attention. I'm absolutely sure that no kid would use TikTok if it only showed biology content, for example.

What social media companies could do is creating a separate versions for kids, where parents make an account and install on their devices. Or even better, each school launches their own local instance of social media. This was we keep harmful content off and yet keep all benefits of social media. When government refuse to fix the problem.

Croatian government literally said they won't impose age restriction to social media unless EU mandates us to do so.

 

[RoboMan]

What social media companies could do is creating a separate versions for kids, where parents make an account and install on their devices.

This is actually a good approach on the subject, and it's exactly what Google aimed for with Youtube Kids. I believe Instagram and Facebook could do the same. It's as easy as forcing accounts and pages to define on their profile wether they're children-friendly or +18, then filtering those accounts/pages out of kids timelines. If one lies about this, permanently ban their page and trust me they won't lie again.

You also raised another good point mentioning gambling, smoking, alcohol, and beyond. While there is an extremely important role parents must take here to avoid these addictions on their children, I do not find erroneous for the government to apply age bans. Mainly because it eases the parent's jobs. But the fun part is... no kid waits till 18 or 21 to take a bottle to their mouth. Almost all of them secretly consume alcohol and parties, friends gatherings and similar. Nevertheless, their parents' provided education help them moderate themselves not abuse these kind of habits. Same argument could be applied to social networks, I believe.