A social media ban for under-16s could be introduced in the UK after the House of Lords backed the move.
Peers passed an amendment to the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on 21 January – a wide-ranging set of law proposals currently making its way through parliament.
The amendment says that within 12 months of the act passing, social media sites must be required to use “highly effective” age checks to make sure no under-16s can become users.
It comes amid growing calls from some Labour MPs, campaigners, and the Conservative opposition for prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to do more to protect young people online.
The government will have the chance to overturn the amendment in the Commons, but experts say it could prove challenging, as many Labour MPs have backed the ban.
The pressure comes after Australia introduced an unprecedented ban on under-16s using social media last month.
But how does that ban work, and what has been the reaction to it?
What are the new laws in Australia?
The ban in Australia has been a driving force in the UK debate, coming up continually in the Lords discussions.
Sir Keir, who was initially opposed to a blanket ban on under-16s being on social media, had just announced a three-month consultation on the matter, through which UK ministers would visit Australia to see what kind of impact the ban was having.
The new laws in Australia have forced the 10 biggest social media platforms to bring in the ban or face fines of up to AU$49.5m (£25m).
The companies were required to find ways to close existing accounts for under-16s and prevent new ones from being created.
The law is designed to protect children from potential mental health risks, inappropriate content and cyber bullying.
Which platforms are affected by the ban in Australia?
The age-restricted platforms include:
• Facebook
• Instagram
• Snapchat
• Threads
• TikTok
• Twitch
• X
• YouTube
• Kick
More generally, age restrictions apply to social media platforms that meet three specific conditions, unless the Australian government determines they should be excluded.
The conditions are:
• The sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more users
• The service allows users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users
• The service allows users to post material on the service
Platforms are responsible for determining whether they fit the criteria and doing their own legal assessments.
Which apps are not age-restricted?
Australia’s eSafety Commission has said the following platforms will not be age-restricted:
• Discord
• GitHub
• Google Classroom
• LEGO play
• Messenger
• Pinterest
• Roblox
• Steam and Steam Chat
• WhatsApp
• YouTube Kids
But the Australian government has indicated the list could change as new products are launched, and young users switch to alternatives.
Teenager. File image: iStock
How do social media companies comply with ban?
Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 requires companies to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage users from signing up and using their platform; they could face fines of up to $49.5m (£25m) for failing to comply.
Of the initial 10 banned platforms, all but Elon Musk’s X have said they will comply using age inference. This involves guessing a person’s age from their online activity – or age estimation, which is usually based on a selfie.
They may also check with uploaded identification documents or linked bank account details.
But the Australian government has said requesting ID cannot be the only method to determine someone’s age.
Read more:
Kids’ social media ban now feels almost certain
Meta – the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads – said in submissions to the Australian government last year that the legislation was “a missed opportunity and overlooks the practical reality of age assurance technology as well as the views of a majority of mental health and youth safety organisations in the country”.
The company, chaired by Mark Zuckerberg, began to exclude suspected young children from its platforms a week before the ban was implemented, but previously admitted that it expects issues with its technology, which could result in accounts belonging to people who are actually over 16 accidentally being shut down.
TikTok said it will have a “multi-layered approach to age assurance,” while Snapchat will use behavioural signals for age estimations.
Is the move controversial?
Prior to the passing of the ban in Australia’s parliament last year, more than 140 national and international academics with expertise in fields related to technology and child welfare signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese opposing a social media age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively”.
In Sydney, two 15-year-olds have sued the Australian government over the ban.
One of the claimants, Noah Jones, who turns 16 in August, has argued the ban will deny 2.6 million young Australians of a right to freedom of political communication implied in Australia’s constitution.
As Meta did in its submissions to the Australian government, several other platforms also hit out at the move.
Google and YouTube Australia’s public policy senior manager, Rachel Lord, said the site will automatically sign out users who are deemed to be under 16.
But, she said, they can still view some YouTube videos while signed out, and parents will “lose their ability to supervise their teen or tween’s account” and use controls such as blocking channels.
In response, Australia’s communications minister Anika Wells said it was “outright weird that YouTube is always at pains to remind us all how unsafe their platform is in a logged out state”.
What have people said about a possible UK ban?
There has largely been cross-party support for a ban in the UK.
The amendment was proposed by Conservative former education minister Lord Nash, and sponsored by former Labour MP Baroness Berger, Lib Dem peer Baroness Benjamin, and crossbencher Baroness Cass.
It came after Tory leader Kemi Badenoch had said the Conservative Party would introduce a ban for under-16s if it was in power.
Speaking to Sky News’ lead politics presenter Sophy Ridge on Thursday, Ms Badenoch said she was “delighted” with the Lords vote, adding: “There is a national consensus, in my view, across political parties, except Labour right now, that we do need to limit young people’s access to social media.”
Sir Keir has regularly spoken about the importance of social media safety for young people.
Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered at the age of 16 by two other teenagers in 2023, was among the signatories of a letter urging party leaders Sir Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch and Sir Ed Davey to support the ban.
Ms Ghey previously said her daughter had had a “social media addiction” and “desperately wanted to be TikTok famous”, putting her “in constant fear about who Brianna might be speaking to online”.
The letter, also backed by celebrities like actors Hugh Grant and Sophie Winkleman, stated: “Children are being served up extreme content without seeking it out. Parents know this has to stop. But they cannot do this alone, and they are asking for politicians to help.”
But another joint statement by dozens of children’s and online safety organisations, experts and bereaved families has urged politicians not to introduce the ban, saying they believe it would be “the wrong solution”.
“Though well-intentioned, blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need,” the letter read. “They are a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner.”
It suggested children would be better served if the government instead focuses its efforts on better enforcing existing laws, particularly under the Online Safety Act.
