The Impact of Social Media on Young People – What to Do
While concerns about the impact of social media on children and young people’s wellbeing are well documented, there is significantly less evidence about the likely effects of restricting or banning access to social media for under-16s. Much of the current debate assumes that evidence of harm is, by itself, evidence that a ban would be beneficial. However, these are distinct questions requiring different forms of evidence to answer.
This gap was highlighted during the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s evidence session on 11 March 2026, which examined proposals to restrict or delay young people’s access to social media. Witnesses presented a range of evidence relating to potential harms, including survey data, clinical observations, associations between screen use and wellbeing, and concerns about exposure to harmful content. While these findings raise legitimate concerns, they do not provide clear evidence about the likely outcomes of a ban.
The key policy question is therefore not simply whether social media can have negative effects on children and young people, but whether restricting access would improve outcomes, and if so, to what extent. At present, the evidence base on the effectiveness, unintended consequences and wider impacts of a social media ban remains limited. As a result, policymakers are being asked to consider a significant intervention without a robust understanding of its likely consequences.
Evidence of Harm Is Not Evidence of a Ban’s Effectiveness
The evidence underpinning concerns about children’s online experiences is substantial. Ofcom’s research has identified a range of risks associated with social media use. One in five 16–18-year-olds reports that social media has, at some point, made them feel that life was not worth living, while around a third report having received sexual messages or violent imagery from strangers. Clinicians, including Dr Rebecca Fuljambe of Health Professionals for Safer Screens, have argued that these patterns constitute a significant public health concern.
However, evidence of harm does not in itself provide evidence about the likely effects of restricting access to social media. Much of the existing literature focuses on reported experiences, associations between online activity and wellbeing, and professional observations of harm among users. These findings are important, but they do not establish what outcomes would follow if access to social media were significantly reduced or removed altogether.
As Professor Amy Orben of the University of Cambridge noted during the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s evidence session, the relationship between social media use and wellbeing is highly complex. Population-level effects are difficult to isolate, and outcomes vary considerably depending on how platforms are used, individual circumstances, and wider social factors. She added that “it is interesting to note why there is such a focus on evidence, because we do not yet have that much evidence about the effectivity of what a ban might look like.” While some children experience significant harms, others derive benefits from online engagement, including access to social connection, support networks and communities that may be unavailable offline. This is particularly relevant for groups who may rely more heavily on online spaces, including children in rural areas, disabled children, those with family overseas, and LGBTQIA+ young people. As Nicola Killean, Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, recently argued, the evidence on age-based social media bans remains limited and mixed, while blanket restrictions risk placing responsibility on young people rather than addressing platform design and safety practices.
Moreover, on 19 January 2026, the Government announced a consultation on children’s social media use to examine the most effective ways to ensure that children are safe and healthy online. The consultation – Growing up in the online world – closed on the 26 May 2026 and sought views on banning social media use by children.
The Government’s consultation recognised that significant questions remain about the practicality, effectiveness and unintended consequences of age-based restrictions, seeking evidence on how such measures could be implemented and evaluated.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the potential benefits of restricting access cannot be assumed solely from evidence of harm. Assessing the case for a ban requires separate consideration of its likely effectiveness, unintended consequences and distributional impacts across different groups of children and young people.
Australia as an Experiment, Not a Blueprint
Proponents of a ban frequently point to Australia, which introduced a “social media delay” policy restricting access for under-16s. This is invoked as proof of concept. However, the policy remains at an early stage, and its long-term effects have yet to be established.
In response to increasing regulatory pressure, researchers are now tracking thousands of children and parents over time to assess how changes in access affect wellbeing, behaviour and family dynamics. Those findings are still emerging. At present, Australia provides evidence that a ban can be implemented, but not yet evidence about its effectiveness or wider consequences.
A similar argument was made by Ian Russell of the Molly Rose Foundation on the BBC’s Newscast podcast in January 2026. Russell noted that the UK already has a comprehensive legislative framework in the form of the Online Safety Act, whereas Australia introduced its restrictions in a different regulatory context. From this perspective, the UK Government’s priority should be ensuring that existing measures are effectively implemented and enforced before considering additional interventions, the likely impacts of which remain uncertain.
The Unintended Consequences
Dr Kim Sylwander of the London School of Economics raised an important concern about displacement. She noted that restricting access to mainstream platforms would not remove children’s demand for online connection; it may instead change where and how that connection takes place. Dr Sylwander stated that:
“The evidence that we do have, based on surveys with children and a lot of qualitative studies, is that vulnerable groups of children, even though they are the most exposed to harms online, report the most benefit from social media: accessing friends they might not otherwise; accessing groups where they feel safe; or finding information that their parents perhaps do not let them look for. Social media are important spaces. Regardless of what we think about the negative impacts, these are realities for many children, and they want to keep that. “
Ofcom’s research suggests that existing age limits are already widely circumvented, with 82 per cent of children aged 10 to 12 using social media despite most major platforms setting a minimum age of 13. This raises questions about whether stricter age restrictions would be more effective, particularly given the availability of VPNs, alternative accounts and other workarounds.
There is also a question about whether a ban reflects what children and young people themselves are asking for. Evidence discussed by the SIT Committee suggests that many young people want safer digital environments rather than exclusion from online spaces altogether.
Evidence submitted by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, drawing on the views of the Commissioner’s Young Advisers, highlighted that social media can provide important opportunities for connection, community and self-expression. Young people emphasised the value of online spaces for maintaining relationships, accessing support and engaging with communities that may be difficult to access offline. From this perspective, blanket restrictions may reduce access to these benefits while leaving broader questions about platform design and online safety unresolved.
Existing Regulatory Frameworks May Offer a More Targeted Response
The evidence discussed throughout the debate on a ban suggests that many of the harms associated with social media arise from specific platform features and business practices rather than from the mere existence of social media itself. Witnesses to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee highlighted concerns including recommender systems that amplify harmful content, engagement-driven design features, weaknesses in age assurance, and inconsistent enforcement of platform policies. These are the mechanisms through which many harms occur, and they may not be directly addressed through age-based access restrictions alone.
The UK already has a legislative framework intended to address many of these concerns through the Online Safety Act. While questions remain about implementation and enforcement, the Act provides mechanisms for regulating platform behaviour, improving child safety measures and increasing accountability for online harms. This raises an important policy question: whether existing regulatory powers should be fully implemented and evaluated before additional restrictions are introduced.
The evidence against a ban does not imply that action should be delayed. Rather, it highlights the importance of ensuring that interventions are proportionate, evidence-based and capable of addressing the specific mechanisms through which harms occur. The key policy question is not whether online harms exist, but which interventions are most likely to reduce those harms while preserving the benefits that many children and young people derive from digital participation.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee session highlighted a central policy dilemma: acting too slowly may allow harms to persist, while acting too quickly risks introducing interventions whose effects are not yet well understood. Looking forward, during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, the House of Lords backed an amendment tabled by Conservative peer Lord Nash that would have introduced a ban social media use for under-16s, passing by 261 votes to 150. However, the proposal was subsequently rejected by MPs, who instead supported a Government compromise that requires ministers to consider and introduce age or functionality restrictions for children following consultation and review. Following several rounds of parliamentary “ping-pong”, the Lords accepted the Commons position and the legislation received Royal Assent. While the precise measures have yet to be determined, the Government has indicated that they intend to bring forward proposals before the end of 2026.
The Government should look to the evidence, and lack thereof, when making decisions in this space, as without strong knowledge of the repercussions of a ban or the utilisation of loopholes to access those spaces illegally, a fully informed decision cannot reasonably be made.