It is strange to think that, had the government imposed its new social media ban on under-16s when I was a teenager, I would not be writing this column today. Back when the internet was full of promise, it was where I found my sanctuary as a nerdy misfit adolescent. My evolution took me from The Lord of the Rings forums (like I said: nerd) to blogging sites, then to a nascent social network known as Facebook. Under an array of pseudonyms I discovered politics, debating, and who I was. I also learned how to write. My bosses at the New Statesman have those tens of thousands of hours spent arguing about elvish lore and intersectional feminism to thank for the searing insights I deliver now. You’re welcome.
I am neither nostalgic nor naive. I know the online landscape has changed beyond recognition in the intervening two decades. My parents worried about strangers luring me to meet them in remote locations; today’s parents contend with the internet’s risks of isolation, bullying, radicalisation and addiction. There have been tragic deaths linked to use of social media. A ban may not be perfect, the argument goes, but if it saves one child from harm, surely it is worth it?
As someone who remembers what it was like to be in my bedroom, online, unsupervised, deep into the early hours of the morning, there are two things I think are missing from this narrative. The first is practical: will banning social media for young people actually reduce harm? The evidence from Australia’s ban is mixed: determined teenagers are finding their way on to the sites adults think should be blocked, using workarounds from the technical (VPNs) to the old fashioned (drawing on fake moustaches to fool age-verification software). So far, no one from the UK government has explained how a British ban would actually work. A law that cannot be enforced is a suboptimal law.
But I have a more radical objection: social media can be good. If you don’t believe me with my rose-tinted view of the past, look at the government’s own report on children’s social media use and attitudes. Polling by Savanta for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology found four in five young people say social media helps them feel connected to others, and twice as many agreed with positive statements about it than negative ones. Strikingly, their parents were on board too: 42 per cent agreed that, for their own child, the benefits of social media outweigh the risks, compared with just 25 per cent who thought the opposite.
That doesn’t mean they are blasé. Parents and young people alike favour safety features such as time limits and restricting location sharing. And clearly many parents do feel their children are at risk. But the results suggest the conversation is skewed. Instead of seeking to protect children from the internet, we should be thinking about how to make the internet safer – for everyone.
Because every time a politician laments the perils of social media for young people – platforms that send users spiralling into toxic echo chambers, facilitate abuse on an industrial scale, wreck sleep patterns and manipulate emotions to keep people trapped and isolated online – we should ask: what is that doing to the rest of us? If these spaces are so harmful to children, aren’t they harmful to adults too? And should we maybe try to fix that?
Admittedly, that’s a much tougher challenge than implementing a blanket ban for under-16s. But it’s an approach that would improve online spaces for people of all ages, without denying teenagers something they and their parents recognise as a positive. I wouldn’t be who I am now if the government 20 years ago had tried to protect me from any risk of online harm. Today’s young minds deserve the same opportunities for exploration and self-discovery. If we won’t build a better internet for our own sake, we should do it for theirs.
[Further reading: Burnham’s supporters are still nervous]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 25 Jun 2026 issue of the New Statesman, Northern Conquest
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentI kind of agree, but the article glosses over the motivations of the Social Media companies (money) and the likelihood that they would act without some form of pressure to change what they are doing. When you listen to their leaders speak, they project a message that they are doing no wrong and putting protections in place, but that isn’t how it looks as a consumer/parent. They can and should do more, but are not likely to.
The issue is with the complacent and disengaged way in which our use of the internet has led to the hegemony of these large platforms. If people had been more proactive early on in learning how to develop their own social networks online, we wouldn’t have the monopolies that push misinformation on a huge scale and allow the owners of these networks an unacceptable level of political power.
It is simple, with a minimum level of technical knowledge, to create an online social network with the same level of functionality (minus the harmful algorithms and advertising) as Facebook using a WordPress site and a couple of plugins. I have never understood why people have not taken this approach rather than using products sold by tech giants of dubious morality and then complaining about it. Laziness? Maybe we have the internet and social media we deserve.
Here’s what everyone’s writing about the social media ban (and why both are wrong)…
1. Simply making social media illegal for under-16s won’t make any difference
2. The benefits of social media outweigh the negatives
The truth…
I still speak with professionals (in positions of power) who honestly believe that unlimited access to everything a smartphone offers is a human right for every teen, including the most vulnerable teens in the country.
The change in law changes this stance. Corporate parents can no longer be guided by their personal beliefs; instead, they need to act legally.
And certainly, for many children, social media brings benefits. And they may even outweigh the risks, because these children are at much lower risk of harm.
But again, for the most vulnerable, the risks are significant.
The pros and cons don’t balance out when the pros are “offering creative/additional ways to speak to people from a distance”, and the cons are “being the victim of online sexual exploitation”.
===
We need to gain a deeper understanding of the most vulnerable children in society, and we all need to make changes that keep them safe.