UK social media ban announced for under-16s

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that under-16s will be banned from major social media platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.

The government says the measures are part of a plan to keep young people safe online.

Mr Starmer explained that: "A full ban is the right choice" and saying it was needed to protect the wellbeing of children.

The new rules follow a UK government consultation on social media restrictions, which took place at the start of the year, where children and adults were asked their opinions at what they think should happen.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said that the ban would take effect in early 2027.

Announcing the news, Mr Starmer said that he was "not prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children", and that is "why this ban must happen, and why this ban will happen."

The government says the ban will include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

However, some messaging services, such as WhatsApp, won't be part of the social media ban.

"Social media is making children unhappy," Mr Starmer said. It is "designed to be addictive" with features that "lock you in for hours," he added.

A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, Mr Starmer said.

He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.

Speaking to Newsround, Online Safety Minister Kanishka Narayan said that when it came to a ban, the definition the government would consider included: "User-to-user services with either algorithms that recommend content and users posting content themselves... so in Australia, things like Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, meta, Facebook are all in scope of the ban.

"We think that definition broadly works, and that's the direction that we'll be going in as well."

Some gaming platforms will be affected as the rules mean companies will have to prevent children from being able to livestream.

There will also be a block on functions which allow strangers to communicate with children under-16 and that will be on by default for under 17s "to prevent a cliff-edge at 16".

Mr Narayan also explained that some platforms weren't included: "Music streaming platforms, I think, are appropriately exempted from the scope of a ban, because it's important that young people can discover the kind of culture and music that is important to them.

"Educational services, we think, are really important, not in scope of the ban as well. So that's a really important point to make"

Mr Narayan explained that the government also wants to stop adult strangers contacting children on gaming platforms: "That is completely inappropriate. We wouldn't allow that," he said.

"And so at the same time, we know that gaming is a fulfilling experience for lots of young people. So what we are saying is that those harmful features for gaming, things like strangers being able to contact kids, combined with live streaming... we want to stop those on gaming platforms. And so that's the big change that we're bringing in as well."

BBC News Cyber correspondent Joe Tidy has been answering some of the big questions around today's announcement.

You can read what he has to say here.

The new regulations are expected to be debated in Parliament by the end of this year.

The plan would be that the ban would come into place in spring 2027.

Across Newsround and the BBC, we have been hearing from young people who have been reacting to the announcement of the ban.

12-year-old Sofia from Sunderland, said that it was "mostly the communication apps" like Snapchat that she's "worried" about losing.

Asked how much of each day she spends on social media, she replied: "Probably most of it."

"I overall think that this ban isn't going to be very effective," 14-year-old George from Cumbria said.

He added that people his age should be able to make their own choices because "we're beyond people saying what we have to do".

14-year-old Adrian said "he's over the moon" about this ban, he said that he felt that teenagers were "getting their childhood back."

He said that he was excited to see "how life will be in the years to come."

However, 13-year old Riley has a different view.

He feels "quite angry" about the ban and that he didn't think it was "the best idea."

"I know a lot of people who really like using social media," Riley explained.

13-year-old Olivia said she doesn't mind the idea of a ban, adding that "it's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either."

"When I get home from school I get changed, sit down on the sofa and I just go on my phone for hours."

Reaction to the news has started coming in from politicians, charities and tech companies.

In a statement, YouTube said: "We've invested in expert-led, age-appropriate experiences and default protections for teens for over a decade and will continue to do so. " But the company criticised what they called "blanket bans" which they argue push children to "less safe services."

Meta, who own Facebook and Instagram, similarly argued that a ban could drive children to "unregulated alternatives," adding that it shared "the goal of keeping teens safe online."

Snapchat argued a similar point, saying "because the majority of time spent on Snapchat is in private messaging between friends and family, an outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn't make them safer- it may simply push them to less safe platforms."

"It is vital that the Government now carefully considers the scope of a ban, and how it will define and apply its exclusions."

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has welcomed the plans saying it was "fantastic news that the Government has finally woken up to the dangers of social media for young people."

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage says the ban is "well-intentioned" but "unlikely to work". He argues the answer is "handsets for children with limited features".

The Liberal Democrats have criticised the plans, complaining that, "after months of delay, the government have cobbled together a hodgepodge of social media restrictions which don't keep children safe" or challenge technology companies enough.

Scotland's Minister for Children and Young People Siobhian Brown (SNP) said "more clarity" was needed on what the proposals "actually mean in practice".

She added that the plans shouldn't be "rushed through without a clear plan for actually holding social media companies accountable for their failures to protect children".

The Green Party has responded to the social media ban by saying that "stronger safeguards are clearly needed" for mental health and online safety, but warned that a blanket ban could leave some young people more isolated.

Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, called the ban a "watershed moment" for child protection, saying: "Today is a win for children and parents and all of us who have campaigned for better child protection online."

Rocio Cifuentes, children's commissioner for Wales said: "I didn't think a ban was the answer... I didn't think the question should have been, 'should children be banned?' but the question should always have been, how can we continue to... make the internet and social media safer for everyone, including children?

"This has to be ultimately about the social media companies... who have to prove that they are safe enough for children to enter into that space."

England's Children's Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza called the ban "positive" but said it should include those up to the age of 18 rather, than stopping at 16.

She argued the debate must change "from banning children to banning the companies who fail to show that their services protect children's safety and wellbeing".

Scotland's Children's Commissioner Nicola Killean said she was disappointed with a ban and has warned of a "real risk" of youngsters being "driven to darker places on the internet".

She argued that the evidence does not show that banning children from social media will make them safer online and the government statement "spoke to adults only, not to the children and young people who will be most affected by these decisions".