Britain plots digital bedtime after kicking under-16s off social media

The UK government is preparing to kick under-16s off social media and clamp down on a range of online features aimed at children, declaring that Big Tech has had its chance to police itself and failed. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans on Monday to ban under-16s from social media as part of a package that also includes new restrictions on livestreaming, stranger contact, disappearing messages, and AI companion chatbots. The legislation is expected to be introduced before Parliament's Christmas recess, with the new rules due to take effect in spring 2027. "Parents want to keep their kids safe and happy, but the online world has made that harder than ever," Starmer said. "I've heard firsthand from families crying out for change and we will do right by them." The prime minister reserved his sharpest criticism for the technology industry. "This is a line in the sand," he said. "Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we're stepping in to protect children, back parents, and set a new normal for future generations." The government is pitching the move as a direct response to parental concerns. According to its Growing Up in an Online World consultation, 91 percent of parents who responded supported a minimum age of 16 before social media platforms can offer services to children. More than four in five respondents said the risks of social media outweigh the benefits for children, while 88 percent said fewer children would be exposed to inappropriate or harmful content if age restrictions were introduced. Ministers also point to evidence that many parents are simply exhausted by the battle over screen time. Three-quarters of respondents said restrictions would lead to fewer arguments at home, while 77 percent said schools and teachers would find it easier to manage children's digital behavior. The government said it intends to follow Australia's model by targeting user-to-user platforms whose primary purpose is social interaction and user-generated content. That would include services such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. The social media ban is only part of the package. Ministers also want to restrict a range of features they say expose children to harm, including stranger contact, explicit image sharing, livestreaming, and AI companion chatbots. Those restrictions would remain in force by default for 16 and 17-year-olds as well to avoid what ministers describe as a "cliff edge" when children turn 16. Ministers are also examining further measures for under-18s, including overnight social media curfews and mandatory breaks in infinite scrolling, with additional details expected in July. The government said it will seek to avoid some of the problems encountered in Australia by requiring what it describes as "highly effective age assurance" measures. Whether those systems prove any better at telling teenagers from adults remains unclear: recent age-verification trials have already produced examples of youngsters reportedly bypassing checks using little more than a drawn-on mustache. Ofcom, which will be responsible for enforcing much of the regime, signaled support for the government's plans. "So far, Ofcom has driven some of the strongest changes of any online safety regulation in the world, from widespread age checks to grooming protections for children," a spokesperson said. "But the industry needs to go much further to make people safe. The government has entrusted us to build on this progress with new measures to protect children, and we're ready to work closely with them as the detailed regulations take shape." But not everyone is convinced the government has found the right answer. James Baker, Platform Power and Freedom of Expression Programme Manager at the Open Rights Group, warned that lawmakers risk repeating a familiar pattern. "Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched." Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions. "A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control." The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them. ®