I was born in the 1960s, long before the internet—or anything like social media—existed.
My childhood was completely offline and involved a lot of time in the library. I had (and still have) endless curiosity. Now, I barely have time to sleep because... have you seen how many lectures and documentaries are on YouTube?
The world changes, technology evolves, and each generation grows up with tools the previous one could never have imagined.
Now, as a mother of three (with my eldest already 23), I feel qualified to speak about social media (phones and the internet) and the role it plays in young people’s lives. My children have grown up with unlimited access — shock, gasp, horror!
Their world didn't fall apart. They have all excelled at school — I could do proud-mum boasting, but no one likes that.
Unlimited access meant they overindulged for a day or so (we've all done it), and then the novelty wore off.
My kids read books (for fun). They study. They have hobbies and ambitions. They know how to find educational content on YouTube, and there is a lot of it aimed at school kids.
Smartphone. The internet. Social media. These are the tools of the modern age, which are essential in most workplaces. Kids should have access at an early age.
TBH, when my children got (second-hand) iPhones as they started secondary school, most of their peers already had phones. I have no idea why such a young child needs their own phone. And I don't think children should take phones to school. I think kids should get a good night's sleep and read a book at bedtime, not a phone screen.
I'm not a complete libertarian.
But at no point, not for a single minute, have I ever wished the government would step in and control my children’s access to social media.
If the government could step in and make them empty the dishwasher without me having to nag, that would be a big help.
Even more than that, I could create a really long list of the ways the government could help parents raise their kids. Universal free breakfast clubs are a great start. Thank you!
Social media didn’t exist when I was young—but it has enriched my children’s lives.
Because I grew up without it, I’m perhaps more aware than my kids of just how much social media and online communities offer.
Education, creativity, connection, humour, skills development, and global awareness.
My children have been able to learn about the world, build communities, find inspiration, and express themselves in ways my generation could barely imagine.
Social media isn’t perfect—but it has brought significant benefits to our lives. I suspect more kids benefit from it than are disadvantaged by it.
Support systems online matter—especially for isolated young people
Especially those who are LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, dealing with mental-health issues, or simply different from the majority around them—thrive when they find spaces online where they can safely connect with others who understand them.
Some children and teens grow up in households or communities where they cannot openly share who they are. Online platforms can be the one place where they feel seen, validated, and supported.
Removing that is not protecting them. It’s isolating them.
Teens are not toddlers—they’re emerging adults.
As a parent, I understand that teenagers can make mistakes. All of us did at that age. But teens are also capable, thoughtful individuals who deserve to be treated as such.
This ban sends a message I fundamentally reject: that everyone under 16 is too immature to navigate the online world and cannot be trusted to make reasonable decisions. That simply isn’t true.
My own children learned responsibility precisely because they were given responsibility—not because someone forced restrictions upon them.
Punishing everyone for the struggles of a few is not a good policy
Of course, social media can become problematic for some young people. But when a child excessively uses social media, that’s usually a symptom of a deeper issue—loneliness, anxiety, bullying, lack of support—not the cause.
Banning all teens from all platforms because a minority struggles with overuse is a blanket solution that solves nothing. It simply removes access for everyone, including those who use these platforms in healthy, productive, and meaningful ways.
You don’t fix a societal problem by removing tools.
You fix it by addressing the underlying issues.
The government micro-managing family life is not welcome
I have raised three children from infancy. At no point did I ever feel the need for the government to intervene in their social media use. Not once. Because that is a family’s responsibility—not the state’s.
Parents who want stricter controls can implement them at home. There is no shortage of tools, settings, or strategies for monitoring or limiting online use if a parent believes it’s necessary.
But the idea that the government should swoop in and enforce a one-size-fits-all ban—regardless of the child, the family, or the context—is deeply troubling.
This isn’t protection. This is micromanagement. And once governments start micromanaging one aspect of family life, they rarely stop at just one.
This ban removes rights, support, and opportunities—without solving the real problems
In the rush to “do something,” the government has chosen the bluntest instrument possible: remove social media from every under-16-year-old, regardless of whether they use it safely, educationally, socially, or responsibly.
It will not fix the complexities of modern childhood.
It will not solve mental-health issues.
It will not make unkind communities kinder.
It will not eliminate the need for real investment in youth support services.
All it will do is take away connection, learning, creativity, and support networks that many young people rely on.
We should guide teens—not shut them out
I grew up in a different world, but one thing hasn’t changed: young people need trust, guidance, and respect. They don’t need to be cut off from the digital spaces where their lives unfold.
I practically lived in the library as a kid (yeah, I was strange), but libraries have been cut back across the country. Even where they still exist, they have shorter opening hours and fewer books.
If kids are to be more sociable, please tell me how to make it happen? I mentioned already that we are stranded by the buses. And as is true for many families. The teenagers don't have any more to go out and meet their friends, and there is nowhere for them to go for free. Times have really changed. I think wealthy MPs who are my age need to come out and meet families with teenagers at home who are struggling to make ends meet, and they will see that access to social media is a real boon for kids who could feel isolated, stuck at home.
If this government truly wants to help young people, it should invest in education, mental-health resources, digital literacy, and platform accountability—not force millions of teenagers out of the online communities that have become fundamental to modern life.
From where I stand, as someone who raised children through the rise of social media, this ban is not protection.
And I cannot support it.
Not only that but many experts agree with me.
LSE Media and Communications Department / EU Kids Online
-
In a statement titled “Protecting, not excluding: why banning children from social media undermines their rights”, the authors argue that outright bans risk doing more harm than good. They point out that digital spaces have become an integral part of childhood, allowing children to learn, connect, express themselves and build social skills.
-
The statement warns that bans may push children into unregulated and unsafe corners of the internet where there are even fewer safeguards, undermining the original aim of protection.
-
It also argues that decisions about access should balance children’s rights to participation and expression with protection, rather than default to exclusion.
Internet Matters (UK internet-safety organisation)
-
Protection should come from better design of platforms, stronger safety features, education, and support rather than shutting out an entire age group.
NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children)
-
The NSPCC, while listing potential harms from social media (e.g. exposure to harmful content, pressure from likes/comments, cyber-bullying), does not call for a blanket ban. Instead, it recommends active parental engagement, use of privacy/safety settings, open communication, and helping children build resilience and digital literacy.
-
Their guidance emphasises that children’s online use should be managed with care, not criminalised or broadly restricted.
***
MPs who want to bring in similar restrictions in the UK:
Gregor Poynton (Labour MP, Livingston)
-
Speaking in 2025: he has “urged the UK Government to introduce an Australia-style ban on social-media accounts for children.”
Josh MacAlister (Labour MP, Whitehaven & Workington)
-
He introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2025 originally aimed at raising the “digital age of consent” to 16 — effectively restricting social-media access for under-16s.
Jess Asato (Labour MP)
-
As co-chair of the cross-party “Children’s Online Safety” group, she has publicly called for raising the “online age of consent” from 13 to 16, and supported an “Australia-style ban” on social media for under-16s.
Joani Reid (Labour MP, former chair of the APPG on Children’s Online Safety)
-
As of early 2025, she said the UK should at least “look at replicating” the under-16 social media ban recently introduced in Australia — if the Australian model “proves successful.”
Tony Vaughan (Conservative MP, Folkestone & Hythe)
-
During the 24 Feb 2025 petition debate, he opened the discussion by saying:
“I asked my two boys, aged 14 and 10 … whether social media should be banned for children. Their answer … was ‘No!’ But when we ask the same question of UK adults … 75% of them … responded ‘Yes.’”
***
Government Response to 2025 Petition: “No ban planned”
-
After a public petition in 2025 calling for a minimum social-media age of 16, the official government response said plainly that they are “not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16.”
The Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA)
-
Instead of banning under-16s wholesale, the government seems to prefer regulation through the OSA, which mandates safer internet standards, age verification for harmful content, stronger moderation, and duties on platforms.
I suspect everyone agrees children shouldn't be exposed to harmful and adult content via the internet and social media. This is a different issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment