The UK government has confirmed an under-16 social media ban, but the policy risks becoming a distraction from the deeper, structural changes that would genuinely reduce online harm for young people. ORN sets out what a truly effective approach could look like.
The UK government has confirmed a ban on some social media platforms offering services to under-16s, with legislation expected to reach Parliament before Christmas and protections coming into force in Spring 2027. The government will go further than a blanket social media ban, introducing default blocks on livestreaming and stranger communication for under-16s across a wider range of online services, including gaming platforms. Further measures include restricting so-called AI romantic companion chatbots to over-18s. The move follows a public consultation that received over 116,000 responses, with 9 in 10 parents backing a ban. The scale of that concern is real, and it demands a serious response.
Online Responsibility Network understands why so many parents welcome this policy, and shares their concern for children’s safety online. But a sticking plaster solution risks letting down the very families it seeks to protect. Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes, and the international evidence should give us pause.
“While we understand why so many parents welcome this policy, and we share their concern for children’s safety online, a sticking plaster solution risks letting down the very families it seeks to protect.” Leanne Proctor, Online Responsibility Network
What a social media ban does not fix
The harms experienced by young people online do not originate simply from the fact of being on a platform. They originate from how those platforms are designed: algorithmic amplification, addictive design features, inadequate content moderation and a persistent failure to enforce existing community standards. A ban removes a child’s account. It does not change the underlying architecture of harm.
The UK Government should reflect carefully on the experiences of Australia, which has identified significant challenges with this approach, who introduced its own under-16 ban in December 2025. The government says it has studied that experience and will go further, introducing more highly effective age assurance measures to make it harder for children to bypass safeguards. Ofcom has been asked to conduct a rapid study on effective age verification and the Secretary of State has written to the new Chair of Ofcom requesting an urgent review of enforcement capabilities. These are welcome steps but evidence from social media restrictions around the world suggests that age limits alone are unlikely to be a silver bullet in protecting children from online harms. Parents deserve a solution that truly delivers, and the proof will be in whether enforcement matches the ambition.
There is also a cost to exclusion that deserves careful attention. The government’s own consultation found that two thirds of young people agreed children under 16 should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms, suggesting broad support for the direction of travel. But a significant number also worried about feeling left out. Social media is, for many young people, how they maintain friendships, access community support and develop digital literacy. Any framework that excludes them without providing safe alternatives or clear routes back in at 16 risks replacing one set of harms with another.
What our research tells us
59% of Gen Z firmly believe responsibility lies with platforms. ORN’s own research shows young people themselves want platforms held accountable for improving online safety, not just excluded from using them.
This finding matters. Young people are not passive victims waiting to be protected. They are active participants who understand that the problem lies with how platforms operate, not simply with their own presence on those platforms. Any policy framework that ignores that understanding risks infantilising a generation while letting the real actors off the hook.
Our research consistently shows that young people want better, safer platforms, not just prohibition. They want content that does not harm them, recommendation systems that do not exploit their vulnerabilities, and companies that take genuine responsibility for the environments they create.
A multi-stakeholder path forward
Online Responsibility Network has consistently argued that reducing online harm requires a whole-ecosystem approach. Every brand and platform has a responsibility in making the internet safer. Platforms shape the algorithmic and product choices that determine what children see and how long they stay. Brands that advertise on those platforms fund their business models. Regulators set and enforce the baseline. Government provides the legislative framework. Each has a part to play and no single action is sufficient on its own.
On platforms specifically, the obligations must include meaningful, independently audited content moderation, default safety settings for all users, transparent algorithmic accountability and enforceable limits on addictive design features. These are not radical demands. They are the baseline of responsible product design.
On regulation, the Online Safety Act already contains the tools needed. The government has confirmed it will ensure Ofcom has the funding to carry out its new responsibilities alongside continued enforcement of the Act’s existing provisions, including protecting women and girls online, tackling harmful content and acting against child sexual abuse material. That commitment to resourcing is welcome. What will matter now is whether the enforcement strategy Ofcom has been asked to publish will translate into genuine accountability for platforms that fail to comply.
On brands, the role of advertisers in funding platforms whose safety standards they would not tolerate in any other medium is a question the industry must urgently confront. Brand safety and child safety are not separate conversations.
“This multi-stakeholder way forward is the route to preventing online harms: platforms implementing effective content monitoring and controls, regulated fast and effectively by the Online Safety Act.” Leanne Proctor
How we move forward
ORN welcomes the government’s commitment to action and the significant public mandate behind this announcement, but we want to see that whatever legislative framework emerges goes beyond age restrictions and delivers on three fronts.
First, mandatory platform accountability: binding obligations on platforms to implement and independently audit content moderation, algorithmic transparency, and safe-by-default design for all users, not just those below an age threshold.
Second, accelerated Online Safety Act enforcement: Ofcom must have the resources and remit to act on non-compliance at speed. The Act’s potential is significant; its delivery to date has been too slow.
Third, shared responsibility across the ecosystem: government, platforms, advertisers and civil society must work together in a structured, ongoing way. Online Responsibility Network stands ready to support that process and to bring our research and expertise to bear.
This is a significant moment. It must mark the beginning of a genuine shift in how online harm is tackled, not a moment when we mistake a headline for a solution.