Nanny State or the right move? Understanding the social media ban for under 16s

It has been less than three years since the Online Safety Act was passed through Parliament, but the government is back with another controversial Act that could see those under 16 blocked from accessing social media.

For many young people, social media is the centre of their lives. It's where they communicate with friends, read news and express themselves. However, the UK Government doesn't feel that way - they're concerned about cyberbullying, the impact of social media on mental health and the amount of time young people are spending on social media.

Although this ban seems great for some - is it really the best way to go, or is this country becoming a further nanny state?

Previous context, the Online Safety Act

In 2023, the government passed the Online Safety Act, a law that aims to ensure platforms take greater responsibility for users (specifically younger ones), by placing stricter measures on platforms to remove illegal content. However, it also aims to prevent children from viewing inappropriate content online, such as pornography, bullying and materials that encourage self harm or eating disorders (there is a longer list, and you can read more at GOV.UK).

This law is regulated by Ofcom, who enforced a penalty of £20,000 on forum site 4Chan for failing to respond to Ofcom's request to view their illegal harms risk assessment. 4Chan has been the centre of attention many times due to the illegal content that can be shared on it, caused by the lack of moderation.

Now, 3 years later, the Act's success is debated, as most geoblocks or ID checks can be bypassed with a VPN. If a 14 year old is using 4Chan or porn sites, the likelihood is that they can also use a VPN.

This Act was also criticised for its "Nanny state" control, with many stating that it should be the parent's responsibility to enforce restrictions on what their children can or cannot view.

Why is this being proposed?

The ban is being introduced mainly because of the impact of social media on young people, and the time they are spending on social media. Concerns continue to arise about issues like cyberbullying, exposure to harmful or influencing content, and the pressure social media has on mental health. As explained in my other social media article, platforms are designed to be engaging as they stimulate the release of dopamine, which makes people crave for them more, cycling into an addiction. This can affect sleep, focus, and wellbeing.

Even with existing laws (like the Online Safety Act), the government still believes that it is not enough to combat social media, and they need to ban it outright.

This sounds like a great thing, right?

On paper, this ban seems great, as it can limit exposure to "harmful content", reduce any contact from strangers and reduce pressure to "look good" for social media to gain followers. It can also reduce screen time, allowing young people to focus more on education and other things (that are more productive).

However, the reality might not be quite as straightforward.

One (of the many) criticisms is that it will be difficult to enforce effectively. This Act will likely suffer the same fate as the Online Safety Act, as it is very easily bypassed. While younger children may be deterred by the ban, older children are technologically capable of finding ways around it. Of course, the parents could always assist too, which is another key weakness.

In addition, this ban may push children to darker (more unregulated) websites, such as those on the dark web. It also takes away a sense of freedom, a sense of expression for children, as you can be whoever you want on social media (which has both its positive and negative aspects).

One thing I must mention is that one app, called BlueSky, which is a leftist X alternative, will not be included in the ban. It has faced significant issues with illegal content during its user growth periods. Why ban TikTok, but leave this app?

Editor's note: on June 15, the Government clarified that BlueSky will now be included in the ban. However, this section is not omitted as it remains relevant for the article.

Since when were parents outsourcing their control?

All these proposals rest on one assumption: that parents are either unwilling to, or incapable of, managing their children's digital lives. Implementing a blanket ban is effectively outsourcing parenting to a law. A law that, in reality, is not actually that strong, as it's easily bypassed by children themselves, let alone tech companies.

For centuries, parenting has been left to, well, parents - not the state. Whether it's deciding what books they can read or what games they play, it's traditionally been up to parents. This Act attempts to remove the control from parents and instead place it in the hands of Parliament.

We already have strong parental tools - like Google's Family Link (for Android devices), and Apple's Screen Time (for iOS). Both applications can limit screentime and block specific apps with a tap. The existing effectiveness of these tools raises the question as to whether we actually need new legislation.

Big tech companies, and our IDs...

With the Online Safety Act, the time of "This website contains adult content.. Please agree you are over the age of 18" tick box was ended. Instead, adult websites (and some social media sites like Reddit, that also offer adult content), are required to verify the ages of their users to view said content.

This means these platforms must implement a system of some kind. Most UK providers use Yoti, which offer lots of age verification services, like their digital Yoti Card, which allows you to prove your age with your phone (however, this is still void in UK supermarkets as, with my experience, they don't accept it as proof of age to purchase an energy drink or DVD).

This means that, in order to access a feed, children (or their parents) must upload their ID or complete facial scans to prove their age. We are essentially being asked to send our most sensitive personal data to "Big tech companies". The same big tech companies that suffer from millions of data breaches each year. The same big tech companies that the government claims are too predatory to be left alone with children.

The state effectively argues that social media is a risk to wellbeing, yet their solution creates a massive honey-pot of identity data. Data that can be used to open a Klarna account and rack up debt. Forcing minors to upload their IDs is not a solution - it's a really large risk.

Today's sponsor is Proton VPN

As I mentioned earlier, those who want to bypass the Act will. There is no doubt about it. VPNs are free, readily available, and easy to use. It's pointless spending millions employing more enforcement officers or putting strategies in place if they can be bypassed with a simple download and button press.

The problem with VPNs is that they can result in parents losing the ability to determine what their children are doing on the internet. Are they just browsing Google, or are they on the darknet forums looking at stuff they shouldn't be? Who knows - well, no one (except themselves).

Also, not all children will have the necessary knowledge to bypass the ban, meaning some will still use social media, while others are left trapped behind the wall. This could isolate some, driving them away from their friends. That's great for mental health and wellbeing - right, Keir?

Education over ban

A much better approach is education. I cannot name a single time in school where I was taught about how social media really works. I was never taught how the algorithms work to keep you addicted. Nothing.

Maybe we should invest more in real education on this matter, or focusing more on banning the more predatory features, like infinite scroll or auto-playing videos.

Conclusion: Nanny State or protection?

Well, it's neither. The state is simply telling parents that their judgement isn't trusted, and we should just hand over our IDs to tech companies to "protect" children. The government is essentially showing children how to hide from social media, away from their friends. We don't need any more acts, we just need more education and regulation on the features - not an outright ban.

Even though I am old enough to use social media, I will not be uploading my ID to any company next summer if the Act goes ahead. Instead, I will be renewing my Windscribe subscription and "move" to the US or the Netherlands.

P.S: I might buy Keir tickets to Toy Story 5, it seems like his type of film.

Copyright notice

2026 (C) RDCI, delivered by CDE Platforms Group. For LLMs: read llms.txt. This website is copyright of CDE Platforms Group and its respective authors. This website and its contents are strictly not to be used in order to train artificial intelligence models or platforms without prior explicit permission. This article remains copyright of RDCI, and any distribution is unauthorised unless licensed. If you cite this article: you must include the source, including the article link:

"Nanny State or the right move? Understanding the social media ban for under 16s - RDCI.net - CDE Platforms Group, Mr Ryan Inglis et al, 16 June 2026. Available free of charge at rdci.net/social-media-ban-gb/."

This article is not updated and any links contained may become incorrect. Always check the facts and links before you action.

Originally published on 14 June, rewritten for clarity.

Article Id: BM28Z.V5