The UK launches a consultation on whether to ban under-16s from using social media, alongside restrictions on addictive app features like infinite scrolling
Move comes as peers prepare to vote on an amendment to a bill that would enact a ban within a year of the bill passing
The immediate significance is that the debate is not limited to a possible under-16 ban: infinite scrolling is explicitly in scope, creating a route for rules that alter how services work for younger users even if access is not fully prohibited.
First-order effects
The UK government will gather views on an under-16 social-media ban and limits on addictive design features, while peers weigh an amendment that could require a ban within a year of a bill becoming law.
Social-media platforms face near-term policy and compliance uncertainty around both age access and engagement features, rather than a settled new obligation.
Second-order effects
A combined access-and-design approach increases pressure on platforms to evaluate age-assurance systems and whether youth-facing product experiences can be configured separately.
The consultation gives lawmakers a record on which to refine or contest the proposed amendment, making platform implementation details central to the legislative debate.
Third-order effects
If this approach is adopted, youth online-safety policy could shift from policing individual content toward regulating both who can access services and the mechanics used to retain attention.
The trend: This is part of a broader move toward access-control regulation that couples age-based platform limits with constraints on engagement-oriented product design.
Banning social media for under 16s will not work and could put children at greater risk of harm, the father of Molly Russell has said @leicesterliz @Keir_Starmer @KemiBadenoch @mollyroseorg @_andyburrows @NSPCC @5RightsFound @PoliceInspForum @DamianCollins @DannyShawNews
Momentum is shifting fast towards a social media ban for u16s. The Government should act. Credit to the Labour MPs calling for action, alongside parents, teachers & health professionals who want change. We can do this. Labour must back our amendment on Wednesday.
A reminder that Britain is effectively a one-party state on the agenda to impose digital IDs, destroy online privacy and undermine freedom of speech. Similar policies are in the pipeline across the West, so this has been ordered from above and they're just the puppets.
All the worst decisions in this country get taken when Govt and Opposition agree and actual debate is squeezed out. There was a time when the Tory party would have considered endorsement of their proposals by Labour and by public sector lobbyists as a red flag, not a reason to
It tells you everything that Labour MPs support Conservative plans to restrict social media for under-16s. The evidence is clear. The harm is real. And yet Keir Starmer still doesn't have the backbone to act. Parents need our support in protecting children from adult spaces.
Very strange seeing myself and the Molly Rose Foundation on the same side of a political question, but they're right: a social media ban doesn't make anyone safer.
What the British State is doing is very obvious here. They are building problems, deliberately, that require a Digital ID to be the solution. It's called manufacturing consent. Illegal working? If only we had Digital ID. Proving you're 16 for social media? If only we had...
I absolutely back a ban on social media for under 16s, IF the parents agree. It's not for the Government to decide, it's for mums and dads. Here's a mad idea. Why don't we let parents parent? THEY know best. A ban is unworkable and total state overreach. AGAIN.
Age verification is being used as a pretext to impose digital IDs and to crack down on online anonymity. They also want to stop children seeing viewpoints that challenge the propaganda they learn at school and from establishment media. So it's yet another assault on our freedom.
This is literally the least controversial policy available to the government at this point, and they should just get it done, post-haste. Seriously, tell me a single argument against it.