I understand why many parents support a ban on social media for under-16s. The concerns are real. Children’s safety, wellbeing and development must come first, and no responsible adult should dismiss the damage that poorly designed online platforms can cause.
But I do not believe a blanket ban is the right answer.
It may sound decisive. It may give the impression that something strong is being done. But I worry that it is a quick fix – one that avoids the harder, more important question: why are some social media platforms still not safe enough for children in the first place?
Technology Is Usually Made Safer, Not Banned
Modern life is full of technologies that bring enormous benefits but also create risks.
Online shopping has made life easier for millions of people, but it has also created opportunities for scams. Mobile banking is quick and convenient, but it has to be protected constantly against fraud. Cars, aeroplanes, smartphones, computers, the internet and AI have all brought their own problems, yet we have not simply banned them because they can be misused.
Instead, we have worked to make them safer.
We regulate them. We improve them. We hold companies to account. We create rules, safeguards and standards so that people can enjoy the benefits while reducing the risks.
So why should social media be treated differently?
The problem is not that young people want to connect, learn, share ideas and explore the world online. The problem is that too many platforms have been designed in ways that do not put children first.
That is where the real change is needed.
Teenagers Deserve to Be Heard
One of the most common things teenagers say to their parents is, “It isn’t fair.”
On this issue, I think they have a point.
Young people use social media in many positive ways. They watch videos that help them understand schoolwork. They learn about other cultures. They follow current events. They develop digital skills. They discover interests, ideas and viewpoints that they may not otherwise encounter.
Of course, adults often see the dangers more clearly than the benefits. That is understandable. Parents and teachers see the anxiety, the distraction, the bullying, the harmful content and the pressure to compare. Those concerns are serious.
But it is not fair to judge social media only by its worst examples.
If we are going to restrict young people’s access to something that plays such a large part in modern life, we should at least make a serious effort to understand both sides of the argument. What do children gain from it? What would they lose? How can we preserve the good while removing more of the harm?
It is understandable that governments listen closely to parents, but children’s voices should not disappear from the debate simply because they do not yet have a vote.
In a democratic society, teenagers’ wishes should not be the only consideration – but they should be one of them.
Enforcement Will Be Far Harder Than It Sounds
Supporters of a ban often compare social media restrictions with the law preventing under-age children from buying alcohol. The argument is that some young people will always try to get around the rules, but that is not a reason to abandon the law altogether.
I understand the comparison, but I do not think it works.
When an under-age person tries to buy alcohol in a shop, the shopkeeper can make an immediate judgement. If there is doubt, proof of age can be requested there and then. The transaction is face-to-face, the decision is local, and the evidence can be checked in the real world.
Social media is very different.
The “shopkeeper” is not a person behind a counter. It is usually a system interpreting data from a device. The child may be at home, at school, on a shared phone, using someone else’s details, borrowing an older sibling’s account, accessing a parent’s device, using a VPN, or finding another route entirely.
That does not mean enforcement is impossible. But it does mean that a law which works reasonably well in a shop may be much harder to enforce in a borderless digital environment.
There is also another danger. If we push young people away from mainstream platforms, some may end up in less visible, less regulated and less safe online spaces.
That would not be a victory.
A Better Way
I agree with the argument made by Ian Russell, father of Molly Russell and founder of the Molly Rose Foundation, that the better approach is to force technology companies to make their products safer for children.
That, to me, is where the focus should be.
Platforms should have a legal duty to design child-safe environments. They should not be allowed to profit from systems that knowingly expose children to harmful content, addictive design, bullying, exploitation or dangerous recommendation loops.
The model I like is not a complete ban, but properly regulated child-safe versions of major platforms.
We already have examples of this approach. YouTube Kids is not perfect, but it shows the direction of travel: a version of a major platform designed specifically with younger users in mind, with clearer rules about what is and is not appropriate.
Could there be a Facebook Kids? A TikTok Kids? Safer, age-appropriate spaces where children can still learn, create, communicate and explore – but without being exposed to the same risks as adults?
This would not be perfect. No system is. But it would address the design of the platforms rather than simply excluding children from them.
A better approach could include:
- clear legal standards for child-safe content
- strong penalties for platforms that fail to protect young users
- transparent recommendation systems
- meaningful parental controls
- proper age-appropriate design
- input from teachers, parents, child-development experts and young people themselves
This would be harder than a ban. It would take more thought. It would require government and technology companies to do the difficult work of building safer systems.
But that is exactly why it is the better answer.
Children Need Protection, Not Exclusion
The aim should not be to shut children out of the digital world. The aim should be to make that world safer, healthier and more suitable for them.
Technology is now part of education, friendship, creativity and everyday life. If young people are going to inherit a digital future, they need to learn how to navigate it wisely. That does not mean leaving them unprotected. It means giving them safer places to practise, learn and grow.
A blanket ban may appeal because it sounds simple. But simple answers are not always the best ones.
Children deserve better than being told that the online world is too dangerous for them and that the only solution is to keep them out. Parents deserve better than being left to fight the problem alone. Teachers deserve better than a policy that ignores the educational and social value that technology can provide when it is used well.
Most of all, society deserves a more ambitious answer.
We should not settle for banning children from social media because platforms have failed to make themselves safe. We should require the platforms to change.
In the words of the young people in my own family, a blanket ban feels like a “lazy fix”.
And on this occasion, I think they are right.