UK confirms social media ban for kids is coming – Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat respond

[midian182]

What just happened? The UK's long-expected social media ban for under-16s has finally been confirmed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, though it's not expected to be introduced until spring 2027. The PM also revealed that livestreaming will be prohibited, while restrictions will be enabled by default for 17-year-olds.

The UK was one of several countries examining potential under-16 social media bans, following the lead of nations such as Australia.

On Monday, Starmer announced a full, rather than partial, ban as he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children."

"Social media is making children unhappy, it's making it easier for bullies to harass and abuse them, and it could even be harming their mental health," the Prime Minister added.

The ban also includes restrictions on online products such as gaming apps, including removing the option to message with strangers.

A government consultation of 9,499 parents and carers found that 89% strongly supported a legal minimum age for social media access, and 88% of those strongly agreed that age should be under-16s.

The usual names such as Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and X will be covered by the ban – under-16s will be prevented from downloading the apps – but messaging services WhatsApp and Signal aren't included. Meanwhile, under-18s will not be able to use romantic chatbots designed to simulate sexual relationships.

Meta, YouTube and Snapchat argue that the ban will do little more than push young people toward more harmful platforms that lack built-in protections and parental controls.

Most countries have looked to Australia, the first to introduce such a ban, when implementing their own versions.

It was reported in April that 61%, or three in five, Australian 12 – to 15-year-olds who had accounts on restricted platforms before the ban came into force still have access to one or more accounts. They use everything from VPNs and unusual facial expressions to asking older friends for help to circumvent facial recognition systems.

Starmer admitted that he expects a similar situation in the UK. "We don't say: 'Oh, look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let's not bother banning alcohol sales for children.' We don't do that, do we?"

The UK is the latest country to confirm age restrictions on social media. Canada proposed legislation last week. Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia have also introduced or announced age-based restrictions, while France, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Thailand, and South Korea are among the countries studying or developing similar measures.

Permalink to story:

UK confirms social media ban for kids is coming – Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat respond

 

[yRaz]

How is YouTube social media?

 

[Burty117]

I barely used social media anyway, but if I’m going to be asked to prove my age to login to my Facebook account (that is old enough to legally drink on its own) I'll just be deleting all my accounts, no skin off my back.

I also don't understand why there hasn't been a push to educate parents about child safety features on their phones, tablets, PC's, Consoles etc...

I assume this is just Keir trying to keep his job with some desperate moves before he gets replaced.

 

[m4a4]

Bullsh!t. If he meant a single word of what he said, he would publicly be trying to make the streets safer for kids. And he wouldn't have to use very misleading surveys to sway the public.

We all know why a bunch of countries are now pushing this on their citizens; Digital ID. It's a whole lot easier to control people when you know who they are and have the power to affect their access.
Saying "think of the children" is just emotional manipulation.

Fortunately, the kids these days are smart and can use VPNs. But we all know the next step is to crack down on those too "for the children".......

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I barely used social media anyway, but if I’m going to be asked to prove my age to login to my Facebook account (that is old enough to legally drink on its own) I'll just be deleting all my accounts, no skin off my back.

I also don't understand why there hasn't been a push to educate parents about child safety features on their phones, tablets, PC's, Consoles etc...

I assume this is just Keir trying to keep his job with some desperate moves before he gets replaced.

There are two reasons.

First: we have totally abdicated parents from any responsibilities, because those are mean. So instead we have to blame the nebulous system.

Second: governments want digital ID third to everything because that makes it easy to oppress your populace and subjugate them, which is the ultimate power the USSR could only dream of. Using children to push such agendas is a tale as old as time.

 

[SRB]

I don't know about if the PM is sincere or not, but I can definitely state that kids now are addicted to it, and that some of the things that they have come to believe are true as a result are absolutely hilarious if it were not so sad.

The current generation graduating high school are going to have to spend years relearning things in order to succeed.

Social media provides all of the brain candy to entertain them without any of the reality.

 

[themastergoose]

I don’t think this is really about kids. He wouldn’t discuss how it will actually be implemented, only briefly mentioning a “universal digital ID,” with full details apparently coming in July. My guess is that all adults will be required to have some kind of government-managed digital ID to verify their identity, which would then be used to access any services that are restricted.

I suspect the system will track and record everything we do or view online, making it too easy to hand out prosecutions remotely thereafter. Most people I know in real life disagree tho, saying if I have nothing to hide online, why should I care if they need my ID to access and monitor what I do online.

I think they’re missing the point entirely, but then if most of the country feels that way, we’re in trouble.

 

[Axeia]

The way they implement this is always so dumb which immediately shows it's not about protecting children at all.

First off, if you want to do this properly, make sure you (the government) provide a portal that can generate a temporary link/code that validates a person as being of a certain age group. Then YouTube can use this link or code to validate that. That way the government (who already knows who I am) can do the ID sensitive stuff instead of me handing it over to (foreign) third parties. Also a lot harder to get around as the base would be something like a passport or birth certificate.
Not something as easily circumvented by a AI generated photo/video.
YouTube doesn't need to know who I am, let alone have a photo or video of me at any point and they definitely shouldn't have copies of actual identifying documents.

Second - put some thought into which platforms you're denying access to. Instagram is overwhelmingly people showing off (mostly themselves) and/or promoting stuff. Facebook is sharing your life (and memes, and gullible old people). YouTube has .. everything. Amongst it, tons of educational content. TikTok has everything as well but the ratio of things not beneficial to your mental health is a lot worse compared to YouTube not to mention the insane amount of misinformation (and the algorithm sucking you into a content bubble you'll never leave).

imo if I was in charge, Instagram/TikTok/Facebook 18+ and have YouTube give restricted access/categorize their content. Anything purely educational 8yo+. Anything pushing products 14yo+. And as part of school education teach kids the difference between reviews and straight up sponsored content, along with a base explanation of how social media algorithms work. A lot more useful than a lot of other stuff they teach.
We teach them about the birds and the bees so they don't end up pregnant or riddled with STDs, why not teach them about social media for the sake of mental health.

 

[Endymio]

How is YouTube social media?

Was that a joke?

We all know why a bunch of countries are now pushing this on their citizens; Digital ID. It's a whole lot easier to control people when you know who they are

Instead of invoking an evil maze of conspiracies, why not think about the situation sensibly? If you can think of a means to implement an accurate, universal system to verify age *without* a digital ID, please let the world know. Patent it first though: it'll make you a billionaire.

I suspect the system will track and record everything we do or view online...

Unlikely, but certainly within the realm of possibility. But if you're worried about that, why not contact your local MP, and ensure the law is written specifically to bar that?

 

[m4a4]

Instead of invoking an evil maze of conspiracies, why not think about the situation sensibly? If you can think of a means to implement an accurate, universal system to verify age *without* a digital ID, please let the world know. Patent it first though: it'll make you a billionaire.

And you're just hand-waiving it away without any critical thought. Gov't removing individual freedom/privacy on a large scale has never ended well. Especially when they are not being honest in their statistics like I already mentioned.

But how about no more gov't nannying that funnels people into more gov't control?


At best I'd want to see them legislate that platforms remove underage users in a reasonable manner. Not in a way that forces us adults to have to use ID to verify ourselves. And then let parents actually do their job.

 

[Endymio]

And you're just hand-waiving [sic] it away without any critical thought. Gov't removing individual freedom/privacy on a large scale has never ended well.

No, I've put a great deal of critical thought into it. You seem to forget that the UK has hundreds of thousands of pages of laws already on the books -- each and every one of them a restriction on freedom to some degree or another.

I'm not particularly happy about laws like this, but it's rather obvious the good outweighs the harm. We could better implement it by mandating prison time for any parent that allows their child on social media, but I don't think that'll fly in the House of Commons, do you?

As for restrictions on freedoms, I'm far more concerned about the Brits arresting people for silently praying on public streets, or for social media posts pointing out that men really can't magically transform themselves into women. You, however, seem motivated not by ethics but by personal self-interest, as laws like this will affect you personally.

 

[m4a4]

No, I've put a great deal of critical thought into it. You seem to forget that the UK has hundreds of thousands of pages of laws already on the books -- each and every one of them a restriction on freedom to some degree or another.

So, should just roll over because it's too late?

I'm not particularly happy about laws like this, but it's rather obvious the good outweighs the harm. We could better implement it by mandating prison time for any parent that allows their child on social media, but I don't think that'll fly in the House of Commons, do you?

Yes, yes. Think of the children. They wouldn't use that emotional manipulation if it didn't work so well on people...
It would be more appropriate to punish the parents of kids who get into trouble (there used to be communities of people who would keep each other in check). But in an age where there seem to bee no real consequences to any actions, I'm not surprised there are some people wanting a short-sighted band-aid solution.

As for restrictions on freedoms, I'm far more concerned about the Brits arresting people for silently praying on public streets, or for social media posts pointing out that men really can't magically transform themselves into women. You, however, seem motivated not by ethics but by personal self-interest, as laws like this will affect you personally.

And where do you think funneling people into Digital ID's will lead? They would just need to flip a switch and a person with "problematic" views would lose their social media in an instant. No anonymity.
Canada already showed us what the tip of the iceberg looks like when covid protesters had their bank accounts frozen because they inconvenienced politicians.

And of course there is some self interest involved. There always is. But at least I'm being honest about it, unlike these slimy politicians.
I just also don't think this is the solution, and is very blatantly a trojan horse. Especially when the UK is now known for grooming gangs...

 

[Endymio]

Yes, yes. Think of the children

I already need a government-issued ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, and many other products, for no reason whatsoever except to keep them out of children's hands. Why aren't you advocating for those laws to be erased? I need a government ID -- and a waiting period and background check -- before I can exercise my constitutionally-protected right to own a firearm. I don't see any constitutional right to social media ... do you?

And where do you think funneling people into Digital ID's will lead? They would just need to flip a switch and a person with "problematic" views would lose their social media in an instant.

You mean like Biden's FBI was doing for four full years? Odd I didn't hear you complaining then.

And of course there is some self interest involved. There always is. But at least I'm being honest about it

Sure; I'll give you credit for that: it places you a notch above most people arguing this position.

 

[m4a4]

I already need a government-issued ID to buy alcohol, tobacco, and many other products, for no reason whatsoever except to keep them out of children's hands. Why aren't you advocating for those laws to be erased? I need a government ID -- and a waiting period and background check -- before I can exercise my constitutionally-protected right to own a firearm. I don't see any constitutional right to social media ... do you?

Do most of these physical stores record your ID or ping it online to verify?
It is a lot different when little things can being digitally tracked and verified because of gov't. Especially when it's tied to speech.

As for firearms in the USA, that is a good question. One could argue that gov't is restricting them too much. But that's not the topic at hand.

You mean like Biden's FBI was doing for four full years? Odd I didn't hear you complaining then.

Whatabout that? How about we not make wild unsubstantiated assumptions about each other.

 

[Endymio]

Do most of these physical stores record your ID or ping it online to verify?

Why yes, they certainly do. Between the store's security cam footage, their point-of-sale record of your credit card, and your own smart phone GPS tattling on you, the same concerns exist.

Again: if you don't want your government *recording* your access to these sites -- advocate for that to be written into the law itself.

Whatabout that? How about we not make wild unsubstantiated assumptions about each other.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. I certainly might have confused you with another poster here, who was actually in favor on that censorship, on the grounds of "controlling misinformation".

 

[OortCloud]

How is YouTube social media?

I agree - YouTube seems odd to include.

 

[m4a4]

Why yes, they certainly do. Between the store's security cam footage, their point-of-sale record of your credit card use, and your own smart phone GPS tattling on you, the very same concerns exist.

No they don't. Not the ID itself.
It is otherwise also concerning, but it is not properly linked (and I can choose alternatives if I want, like using cash).

But again: if you don't want your government *recording* your access to these sites -- advocate for that to be written into the law itself.

Yeahhh... forgive me if I don't trust that the gov't will hold itself accountable, especially when it knows it will investigate itself. Lets not give them the chance in the first place.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. I certainly might have confused you with another poster here, who was actually in favor on that censorship, on the grounds of "controlling misinformation".

Anyone who attempts to "control (mis)information" should never be given power. Having a "ministry of truth" is not supposed to be a good thing lol

 

[Win7user]

Social Media is a bully pulpit, and a gossip entity. None of them have any redeeming value. I wish the US would join this ban, and maybe some day ban UN-Social Media from the US altogether.

 

[Endymio]

It is otherwise also concerning, but it is not properly linked (and I can choose alternatives if I want, like using cash).

I'll make a prediction here: within 5 years, cash will be just as trackable as credit card purchases: every transaction will record the physical serial numbers of every bill involved, and AI systems will be able to track that bill as far forward or backwards as desired. Unless you revert to a barter system, the government will know how you spend every cent.

 

[m4a4]

I'll make a prediction here and stand behind it: within 5 years, cash will be just as trackable as credit card purchases: every transaction will record the physical serial numbers of every bill involved, and AI systems will be able to track that bill as far forward or backwards as desired. Unless you revert to a barter system, the government will know how you spend every cent.

5 years? Lol no, that would be like betting the whole US power grid will become modernized in 5 years (which is more realistic at least)

They will try to push digital only (no cash) loooong before they try to track cash everywhere. But I wouldn't bet on the US doing that anytime soon (at least, not with an R in power). Europe might try (again?) very soon though.

 

[Endymio]

5 years? Lol no, that would be like betting the whole US power grid will become modernized in 5 years (which is more realistic at least)

Eh? Banks already have scanners that read bill serial numbers, recording this information to a central database is something that can be implemented in months. That alone gets us 95% of the way there, since nearly all cash transactions are no more than 1 hop away from a bank deposit or disbursal.

 

[yRaz]

I agree - YouTube seems odd to include.

I love YouTube and it actually takes the place of cable in my house. I guess it is technically social media, but I see it used in 3 main ways. People making their own private news networks, documentaries/educational content and how-to videos.

 

[m4a4]

Eh? Banks already have scanners that read bill serial numbers, recording this information to a central database is something that can be implemented in months. That alone gets us 95% of the way there, since nearly all cash transactions are no more than 1 hop away from a bank deposit or disbursal.

Yeah, but unless every mom and pop shop implements a machine and the special infrastructure/software to use it, it ain't happening (letalone quickly). Between shop and bank doesn't count for tracking you if they don't record the bills to the transaction. And then don't forget about coins.

That's why I'm saying digital would be the way they go; already most of the way there. The only thing in the way might be old pesky laws protecting cash or people pushing back on their freedom.

 

[Endymio]

Yeah, but unless every mom and pop shop implements a machine and the special infrastructure/software to use it, it ain't happening (letalone quickly).

You're not analyzing the situation fully. You withdraw a bill from the bank and give it to that mom-and-pop. They accept it then deposit it into another bank. Both ends are tracked, and connecting the two together to determine exactly how you spent that bill is trivial.

...And then don't forget about coins.

What are you going to buy with a roll of quarters? While in theory you can withdraw a large sum in coins, good luck finding a merchant who'll accept it ... and if they did, such transactions are so rare, they'd be even more easily tracked than one with paper currency.

 

[Northy]

I didn't let my kids have smart phones or use social media till they were 16. It's incredible how much more balanced, resilient and thoughtful they are compared to their peers. They even have hobbies that they choose over using screens as young adults now, attention spans over 30 seconds.

The massive lot of actual research that went into making these laws in Australia in the first place, the harms have been known and escalating for years and the social media companies have refused to change their algorithms to prevent them... same product designed to be addictive for kids as adults as far as they're concerned. Nothing will ever change that position because our kids mental well being is worth billions to them, and they only care about shareholder reports.

Digital ID waaah waaah wah. That's a battle worth fighting if the time comes to fight it, sacrificing our kids mental health to the tech bros because of fear that might happen is childish lunacy. Should maybe step back from social media as well if you can't get past that straw man.