The proposed measures, expected to come into force later this year, aim to curb excessive screen time, strengthen age verification, and limit exposure to harmful content.
Ministers argue the changes are necessary to protect young people’s mental health and wellbeing, amid growing concern over addiction, cyberbullying, and algorithm-driven content.
However, the plans have sparked debate about personal freedom, digital identity, and whether such rules are enforceable in practice. Critics warn they could alienate young users or push them towards less regulated platforms.
To understand how those most affected feel, we asked two teenagers to share their perspectives. Their responses highlight a divide between protection and independence, offering a candid insight into how this generation views the future of social media.
“My reaction was frustration”
by Archie Bailey
My initial reaction to the announcement that from spring 2027 social media will be banned to under-16s, like many others of my age, was frustration as social media has become an everyday part of our lives.
It allows us to communicate, collaborate, and socialise.
However, I can also understand the many issues that come with children and teens using social media.
There are both positive and negative sides to social media and people who both welcome and oppose the proposed ban, but it is safe to say that most under-16s who would be affected by the ban are not supporting this new legislation.
Personally, I have had nothing but positive experiences with social media.
I use platforms like Snapchat to communicate with friends.
For me, this is vital as I live in a rural area and attend a school with a large catchment in Somerset, and social media allows me to speak with friends who live far away as it is often inconvenient and difficult to meet up in person.
However, my experiences may be positive as I am careful about who I add and allow to view my posts and accounts.
Whereas, many others my age are not always as cautious as they perhaps should be and have consequently had negative experiences with social media.
Social media platform TikTok has also been found to purposely design their algorithm to be addictive.
Leading us to endlessly ‘doomscroll’, particularly at night time, decreasing many young people’s sleep quality which we know is extremely important for developing teenagers.
It maximises the time that we spend on the app by tracking our engagement on videos and causing us to lose a sense of time.
I believe that addictive designs like this should be regulated and stopped as it has negative impacts on under-16s’ sleep, self-esteem, and ultimately mental health.
Despite this, I believe that social media is not all bad, one benefit to social media is the educational side of it.
There are many educational content creators on both TikTok and YouTube who make videos and resources to aid students’ studies and revision.
Myself and many others use videos as a valuable tool for revision and this ban would prevent us from utilising this resource.
I would argue that YouTube should not even be considered a form of social media as there is no real communication aspect of the platform.
Overall, I believe that ensuring the safety of children and teens online is of utmost importance but maybe a full ban is not necessary.
Instead, regulations could be brought in to make social media a safer and more positive environment for us to connect with friends by making under-16s have private accounts to protect themselves but not restrict their use completely.
I also think that the government should hold the social media platforms to account by introducing restrictions on how they make content addictive.
Social media is a useful tool for young people and the government should work to make it safer rather than waste a valuable resource.
“Immediate exposure might do more harm than good”
by Prudence Vezey
Upon hearing about the upcoming social media ban for under-16s, my initial thoughts were supportive.
However, after some consideration, I feel many negatives may outweigh the positives when considering social media and its uses alongside the issues with immediate, headlong exposure at sixteen.
For me and other teenagers alike, social media has proved a helpful asset, particularly surrounding GCSE exam revision and keeping on top of studies.
Personally, I have noticed that YouTube appears to be the immediate site for young people to access revision resources.
With the ban in place, however, fifteen-year-olds across the country will be unable to access these benefits, putting them at an unfair disadvantage to older students who have already turned sixteen.
For me, particularly as someone born in August, it would have put me at a completely unfair disadvantage to my fellow classmates, leaving me in the dark, an issue I feel seems particularly relevant in a society turning more digital by the day.
Another issue I feel seems most prevalent about the ban is the potentially harmful impact of immediate, headlong exposure into the world of social media as teenagers turn sixteen.
With a lack of teaching, knowledge, and most importantly, experience, young people might find themselves mentally shocked by the sudden exposure to these apps, particularly aspects like AI and ‘fake news’.
Although social media definitely houses lots of harmful content, leading to factors such as reduced self-esteem and confidence, I feel immediate exposure might do more harm than good without the proper understanding and educational procedures in place.
Therefore, I feel the ban should be brought on alongside proper teaching and education surrounding the potential dangers of social media and should be reduced to a more suitable age of fifteen to enable all students to have an equal opportunity within and outside of their studies.
