At the end of 2025, Australia did something few governments have been willing to do. It placed the needs of children above the profits of the tech industry.
By introducing a ban on social media accounts for under-16s, Australia acknowledged what many educators have been saying for years: the current relationship between children and social media is neither healthy, nor neutral, nor something we can continue to manage through half-measures.
Since then, the conversation in the UK has shifted decisively. What was once dismissed as unrealistic or heavy-handed is now being discussed seriously across education, politics and the media. From teaching unions to senior cross-party political figures, from social commentators to bereaved families, there is growing agreement on a simple point: the status quo is failing children.
As an education consultancy working with families, schools and young people across London, and the UK, we agree. A ban on social media for under-16s is not only defensible – it is necessary.
A social media ban for children is not about moral panic
It’s important to be clear about what this debate is not. This is not nostalgia for a pre-internet childhood. Nor is it a blanket rejection of technology. It is a recognition that social media platforms are designed around adult attention, advertising revenue and behavioural manipulation – none of which align with the developmental needs of children.
Teachers are not imagining the impact. One of the UK’s largest teaching unions – NASUWT – has formally called on the government to legislate for a ban, citing declining concentration, increased classroom conflict, and online disputes spilling directly into school life. These are not abstract harms; they are daily realities in classrooms. For more on how schools are already managing technology challenges—including mobile phones see our blog on Mobile Phones in Schools: A Balanced Approach to Managing Technology.
Parents see it too. Sleep disruption, anxiety, exposure to sexualised, violent & discriminatory content, and relentless comparison are now common features of adolescence. While not every child is harmed in the same way, the risk profile is fundamentally misaligned with what we would accept in any other area of childhood.
Social media addiction
Research increasingly suggests that the concern around social media is not simply about “screen time,” but about addiction-like design. Studies from the University of Michigan have found that excessive social media use can mirror patterns seen in recognised behavioural addictions, including compulsive engagement, impaired self-control, and heightened sensitivity to reward cues. Similarly, scholars at the University of Cambridge have examined what they describe as the “attention economy,” highlighting how algorithm-driven platforms deliberately exploit dopamine-based reward systems through variable reinforcement – mechanisms long associated with addictive behaviours.
While this research does not claim that social media addiction is clinically identical to substance addiction, it does underline a critical ethical question: if digital platforms are engineered to maximise dependency using neurological pathways linked to addiction, should children – whose impulse control and decision-making capacities are still developing – be
deemed capable of consenting to their use? In that context, age-based restrictions begin to look less like overreach and more like a proportionate safeguard.
Why incremental regulation is no longer enough
The UK already has online safety laws. Platforms already claim to have age limits. Yet children continue to access content and spaces they are not ready for, with minimal friction and little accountability. The Australian ban matters because it moves beyond the idea that responsibility lies primarily with children, parents and schools. Instead, it places responsibility where it belongs: with platforms and the state. Crucially, early evidence from Australia suggests that enforcement is both possible and meaningful at scale. Millions of under-16 accounts have been restricted or removed. This directly challenges the long-held assumption that age limits are unenforceable.
In our view, the lesson is clear: if governments are willing to act decisively, the technology can follow.
Cross-party support reflects a deeper shift
What makes the current UK debate particularly significant is its breadth.
Support for stronger restrictions – or an outright ban – now spans major teaching unions, senior Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour backbenchers, Local Government leaders, and a growing number of public figures. This is not a fringe campaign. It reflects a deeper cultural shift in how we understand childhood in the digital age.
When political opponents, educators, and families with lived experience all arrive at similar conclusions, it deserves attention.
The question is no longer whether social media can be harmful to children. That is well established. The question is whether we are willing to accept that some environments are simply inappropriate for under-16s – just as we already do with alcohol, gambling, and other adult-designed spaces.
Acknowledging complexity – without avoiding responsibility
Social media is not universally harmful, and not every young person experiences it in the same way. Some teenagers do find connection, creativity and community online. But public policy is not built around best-case scenarios. It is built around risk, protection and the realities of scale.
A ban does not prevent digital learning, messaging, gaming or online creativity. It does not eliminate the internet. What it does is remove children from the most commercialised, addictive and psychologically demanding corners of the digital world during a critical stage of development. That is a proportionate response to the evidence we now have.
A ban is not the end – but a line in the sand
We do not see a social media ban as a silver bullet. It must sit alongside digital education, parental support, and continued research into online harms. But it does set a clear societal boundary. That boundary shows that children’s wellbeing matters more than engagement metrics. It gives schools and parents breathing space. In so doing, it will force platforms to redesign with age-appropriate use in mind, rather than adding safety measures in response to harm.
A social media ban for UK children is not an overreach. It is overdue.
The UK has the opportunity to learn from Australia and to act with confidence rather than caution. We believe it should take it.
