Australia banned teens from social media in December. Now, the United Kingdom has followed with an even more restrictive policy.
But Northeastern University psychologist Rachel Rodgers said that focusing on improving rather than banning the fast-moving world of social media technology may be a more effective way to promote healthy social media habits.
“One of the difficulties is that legislation is always reactive to technology,” said Rodgers, who studies socio-cultural influences on body image and eating concerns. “It is often more helpful to anticipate changes and be collaborative as things are rolling out, rather than trying to fix them afterwards.”
Australia enacted the world’s first social media ban for children under 16 at the end of 2025, cutting off young teens’ access to platforms, including X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and Reddit.
Teens are resourceful, however; and the ban has been criticized as “a flop,” after a March report showed that around 7 in 10 parents said that their child still had an account on Facebook (63.6%), Instagram (69.1%), Snapchat (69.4%) and TikTok (69.3%).
On Monday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in a press conference that the country would ban users under 16 from social media beginning in spring 2027.
The plan includes a ban on all the main social media platforms – Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X – with separate restrictions on online products such as gaming apps, including removing the option to chat to strangers, according to the Guardian newspaper.
“This is not something I do lightly, and I will not present it as cost-free, as if social media has [brought no] benefits to young people, because clearly that is wrong,” Starmer said, according to media accounts. “But government is always about choices, and it’s clear to me that a total ban is the right choice.”
Social media company leaders slammed the ban, according to Deadline.
John Wihbey, professor of media and communications technology at Northeastern University, said the U.K. legislation “seems to be slightly more aggressive” than Australia’s ban.
Rodgers, associate professor of applied psychology at Northeastern, agreed.
Rodgers noted that while the Australian ban focuses on whether teenagers younger than 16 can create accounts on social media platforms, the U.K. legislation also prohibits certain social media functions. For example, those under 16 cannot livestream themselves, while those under age 18 will be prohibited from using romantic chatbots.
But Rodgers and Wihbey were unsure whether implementing these bans has been – or will be – proven effective.
“It may be that some of these [features of the bans] are successful, or they could be functionally unworkable. We just don’t know yet,” Wihbey said.
Rodgers pointed out that the efficacy of the ban doesn’t just depend on the behavior of those who were kicked off social media; it also depends on whether children who are now 13, for example, adopt and use social media safely and responsibly once they turn 16.
“We won’t know it’s effective until there are some data to say, yes, they are using the platforms less, and, yes, we’re seeing these [mental health] concerns decrease,” Rodgers said. That could take years, Rodgers added.
Wihbey noted that there are also likely to be “second- and third-order consequences” of the bans in terms of changing cultural behavior and norms.
“Youth of the future may end up adopting different kinds of technologies and habits,” Wihbey said. “It’s a dynamic space, and we just don’t know how regulation and governance moves may ultimately drive unanticipated consequences.”
Ultimately, Rodgers questioned whether age restrictions really solve problems that exist with social media.
“I always am regretful with this type of legislation that it’s not designed to ask platforms to change,” Rodgers said. “It’s restrictive; it’s not legislation that says you need to design a platform in this way for 13-year-olds to be able to use it.”
Because social media can be helpful, Rodgers noted. She noted that it gives youth access to community, enables youth to access content that may be readily available in certain communities and to communicate and forge connections.
Ultimately, the U.K. legislation is “an important step” toward using policy to help protect youth from the harmful effects of social media, Rodgers said.
“I think that it will be more helpful for future legislation to move away from approaches that are just prohibitive towards approaches that are more creative in how to promote online spaces where users will be safe and where they can still reap the benefits that the technology affords,” she said.
