British children may benefit from the United Kingdom’s newly announced ban on social media access for those under 16, but American children and parents should not expect similar legislation here.
After months of preparation, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Monday that the United Kingdom would ban children under 16 from using almost all major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X, and YouTube. The ban is set to take effect next spring.
The U.K. ban draws on scientific studies about the effects of social media on children, polling of British parents, and similar efforts in other countries, including Australia.
According to Starmer and the U.K. Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, polling in May found that the ban was supported by 9 in 10 British parents. From the outside, the case looks simple: The public supports the ban, the government is willing to enforce it, and scientific research suggests it could benefit children.
But the ban may not be entirely free of politics. While most major social media platforms are included in the age restriction, Bluesky, widely viewed as a haven for users fleeing Elon Musk-owned X, is notably not included in the new restrictions.
The Washington Examiner reached out to the U.K. Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology for clarification on which platforms are covered. A press representative said the ban will include “platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X.”
When asked whether Bluesky would be included, senior press officer Nick Mairs responded that “Bluesky has itself assessed that it meets the Australian criteria and has confirmed it is in scope of Australia’s ban.”
In other words, the British government appears to be relying on Bluesky’s own assessment of whether it meets the criteria for Australia’s ban, not even Britain’s. Starmer’s government may be trying to present the policy as a neutral child-safety measure, but it has done little to avoid the appearance of partisan favoritism.
A similar ban in America would immediately polarize an already divided public.
According to a 2023 Pew Research Center study, 71% of American adults and 56% of teenagers support age restrictions on social media. Those numbers suggest there is some bipartisan concern about children’s online lives, but they do not amount to the kind of overwhelming consensus British lawmakers are claiming.
Even with its political problems, the U.K. ban is aimed at a real concern. Children have been raised in a world where online interactions often feel more important than real-world relationships, and there is growing evidence that this has harmed them.
Jonathan Haidt, an American social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the author of The Anxious Generation, has advocated more government oversight of social media platforms. In a 2023 article, Haidt noted that, among 55 studies on the relationship between social media and teenage mental health, “The great majority of studies find a positive correlation between time on social media and mental health problems, especially mood disorders (depression and anxiety).”
This evidence supports what many parents have seen for years. Social media may be an effective form of entertainment, but it is often harmful to the mental health of boys and girls.
So if research and public opinion both support age restrictions, why is America unlikely to follow Britain’s lead?
The answer is the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has argued that such a ban would run into serious constitutional problems because “kids don’t have to wait until they’re 18 to benefit from the First Amendment’s protections.”
“It’s up to parents, not the government, to decide how and if their kids engage with social media and the world of ideas,” FIRE argues. “If the government had unchecked power to control what information children could access, government officials would usurp parental imperatives and inevitably abuse that power to advance ideological agendas.”
WITH CULTURE TURNING CONSERVATIVE, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO ABANDON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Age verification would create another constitutional and practical problem. As FIRE notes, requiring users to prove their age “raises serious privacy concerns, intrudes on anonymous comment and access to information, and imposes additional burdens on adults who just want to log on.”
Protecting children from an online world that is often obscene, hostile, and unhealthy is an honorable goal. But in the United States, the federal government cannot practically or constitutionally impose a British-style social media ban. Once again, children’s safety rests not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, but in the hands of parents.