What the Social Media Ban Really Means for Under-16s

I wonder if UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has ever watched the 1980’s movie Footloose. Bear with me. The film tells the story of a teenage boy who moves from a big city to a small, conservative town that banned dancing following a tragic car accident involving local adolescents. The boy and his friends refused to accept the ban and set out to overturn it so they could enjoy senior prom. It sounds quaint and quintessentially 1980s, but the script is said to be loosely inspired by the true story of a group of Oklahoma teenagers who successfully challenged an 80-year-old ban on public dancing. The moral, of both the true story and the film, seems to be: Where there’s a will, teenagers will find a way.

This narrative provides the perfect metaphor for the news this week that UK Government – the small, conservative town in this scenario – has announced a ban on social media for under-16s, which is likely to come into effect from spring 2027. Like the real/fictional bans on dancing, this decision was made with good intentions off the back of tragedy, but, just like the real/fictional bans on dancing, it won’t work.

According to one report, in the 24 hours immediately after the ban was announced, searches for virtual private networks (VPNs), which are tools that hide users' IP addresses and therefore their identity and age, increased by 165%.¹ Teens know this stuff; they’re digital natives, familiar with the hacks and loopholes to override parental – and government – controls. And let’s not forget, there have been age restrictions of 13 on most sites since the inception of social media. Does that mean children under 13 haven’t been using them? Of course it doesn’t; it means they’ve been lying about their date of birth, just as young people have always lied about their date of birth to get around age restrictions on buying cigarettes and vapes, getting served in bars, and gaining entry to clubs. You probably did it yourself, no technical wizardry required.

Depending on where you look, there is research to suggest that 20% to 60% of young people falsify their date of birth to bypass so-called “age gates” online. According to Ofcom, generally considered to be one of the more trustworthy sources of data, 85% of children are frequently online with 65% aged six months to two years regularly consuming online content, according to their parents.² Imagine the digital tenacity those infants will have by the time they reach 13. In Australia, where the under-16s social media ban came into force six months ago, 75% are still using social media.¹

Evidence and common sense suggest the ban won’t work. So why has Starmer’s government taken this route? They’ve been pressured by campaign groups, mostly consisting of concerned parents, many of whom have been influenced by sensationist headlines and Netflix dramas. (Remember the Adolescence effect? I wrote a response to that previously,³ in quick succession to an article in response to the plethora of sensationist headlines.⁴ ) I’m not denying that social media has the potential to be a harmful influence. But let’s not ignore the fact that it also has the potential to enable young people to expand their horizons, connect and build relationships, and become truly remarkable adults who are emotionally literate, passionate about justice and accepting of difference and diversity.

During the Government’s announcement, Starmer called the proposed ban “a line in the sand” that will prohibit under-16s from accessing “user-to-user” platforms including TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, X, Facebook and Reddit – but not WhatsApp. There will be prohibitions on livestreaming and communication on gaming sites such as Roblox, while chatbots with “intimate functionalities” that simulate sexual relationships and role play will have an age restriction of 18.

I want to believe that the government’s intention is good: to protect young people from online harms; but I don’t think it will work. In fact, I believe that implementing a ban will increase the risk rather than reduce it. Young people will still hang out on social media, they just won’t feel able to tell anyone where they are or what they’re up to. They will lie about their age and so the algorithm will treat them as adults. When they get into a sticky situation, they won’t feel able to ask for help, because they’ve been told they’re doing something illegal and dangerous—and so they will feel like it’s their fault.

What will the ban really mean for under-16s? If they want to dance, they will dance. But from spring 2027 they will have to go underground and incognito to do so.