Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Social Networks United Kingdom Government

Britain Unveils Sweeping Ban On Social Media For Under-16s (nbcnews.com) 147

Posted by BeauHD from the blanket-ban dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from NBC News: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a sweeping ban on social media use for those under 16, joining other countries around the world seeking to protect children online. "It's a big step for our country," Starmer said in a recorded video message released Monday. "Social media is making our children unhappy and unsafe, and as a parent, as much as a Prime Minister, I just can't let that go on anymore," he added.

The ban will include social platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, while there is no intention for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included, the government said in a release. [...] Starmer's government called Monday's announcement a "landmark" move, saying the new measures would be brought to Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected to come into force next spring. Beyond the blanket social media ban, the restrictions will also include blocks on functions such as livestreaming and stranger communication with children for under-16s, it added. "It's not an easy thing to do. I'll be honest about that," Starmer said. "We haven't rushed into it. We've looked carefully at the evidence, and we'll have to adapt our approach as technology changes, learn from other countries which are taking similar steps."

He went on to say that it will face resistance from some of the most powerful companies in the world. "But we will take them on, and we will win, because the need for action could not be any clearer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Britain Unveils Sweeping Ban On Social Media For Under-16s More

Britain Unveils Sweeping Ban On Social Media For Under-16s

Comments Filter:

  • Good old Labour (Score:3)

    by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @02:02PM (#66193872)

    Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.

    • When was the last time Labor won a by-election?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rossdee ( 243626 )

        "When was the last time Labor won a by-election?"

        Never - Labour (and many other words) end in -our in Britain.

    • Dont be silly!

      This is a truly visionary, and ambitious programme undertaken by the british PM!

      By restricting the information and content young people have access to, they can double down on state owned television and enforce messaging that favors them!

      It'll only take half a decade or so to come to fruition, but it'll work, I'm sure of it!

      There's no way those kids will use stuff like proxy servers, VPNS, fake identities, or TOR exit nodes! If they just block social media, they can shut down all those bad dir

      • It'll be a Brave New World, surely.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by zlives ( 2009072 )

        kids getting exploited by tech billionaires... go on tell me why this is good?

        • Because these people are willing to sacrifice kids to hide their porn habit

          Think of it like the 2nd Amendment, kids are an acceptable cost.

        • Trick question-- There is nothing "good" about social networking as it currently exists.

          Moreover, the very same people here who are wanting to shut down child access, are the same folks who have been doing all manner of organized child exploitation through government systems abuse.

          You seem to think that just because one thing is bad, the other must be good.

          The reality that none of the things are actually good, seems to escape your grasp.

          I am being pragmatic, and suggesting instead that No Force On This Eart

          • There's no way to make social media safe for children.

            Yes there is, but it's very unpopular. It starts with dismantling the scourge of Feminism, which is the root cause of MANY of the dangers children face today, including social media. That's just the start, though.

    • Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.

      I don't think a few 18 year olds are going to sway the vote in any meaningful way as much as an entire generation of boomers will. But really is this appealing to boomers? In what way? I thought it would be appealing to boomers to have kids distracted and not annoying them.

      • Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.

        I don't think a few 18 year olds are going to sway the vote in any meaningful way as much as an entire generation of boomers will. But really is this appealing to boomers? In what way? I thought it would be appealing to boomers to have kids distracted and not annoying them.

        Boomer here. I want kids engaged and curious and asking questions and getting into trouble - not enough to harm them or hurt their chances at success. All of the boomers I know are like that - both those with kids and grandkids, and those like me who don't have them. Admittedly, my experience may not be the norm.

        I'm wondering if there's a cultural divide here, either Canada vs US, or if one or both of us is/are in a bubble.

    • 16 and under do not vote.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        No, but they grow up into voters. And Starmer wants to allow 16-year-olds to vote in the next election because he hopes they'll vote Labour.

    • Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.

      The UK government held an online consultation. Tens of thousands of people under 21 responded to it and 84% of those respondents wanted it.

  • We would not want them reading for 8 hours a day, it could corrupt their minds

    • We would not want them reading for 8 hours a day, it could corrupt their minds

      I'm hoping you wrote that with tongue in cheek and were being sarcastic.

      But in case you were being serious, I'll point out that reading - assuming we're talking about books and not posts - isn't perverted by some dystopian engagement-driven tech-bro scheme to separate people from their money their autonomy, and their sanity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mdvx ( 4169463 )
        I was throwing back (well still) to a time and places when books were banned because they might corrupt the youth. Also, on a personal note, my own son got the motivation to learn to read by playing pokemon on a gameboy, while many people hailed computer games, again as a corruption of the youth.

  • Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:3)

    by Himmy32 ( 650060 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @02:31PM (#66193958)

    Undoubtedly social media use by kids is problematic and it's not something that can be handled just by parents. If all the other kids are communicating through social media, banning your kid is isolating them from their peer group.

    But requiring identification to use communication tools is bound to be implemented poorly. Type your age doesn't work, but anything more rigorous is step closer to an Orwellian future.

    • Re:Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @02:37PM (#66193986)

      It is about ending anonymity on the internet.
      Discord for example is requiring your face and ID to "prove you're an adult", in countries where these laws were implemented.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Bingo. It's not about the kids, it's about the adults.

        Adults will complain that they have to send in info to prove they're not kids, and Starmer will say "it's funny you mentioned that, because we already have the solution. Just apply for your lovely new Digital ID."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Z80a ( 971949 )

          Pretty much.
          But given UK, i wouldn't be surprised if was a solution like sending agents to your house to certify you're an adult, like the TV license thing.

      • Didn't Discord back away from that because everyone freaked out? I expect UK, Australia, and Canada to go the way Bitcoin went a few years back after world leaders at WEF schemed to track crypto currency in that you have to take a picture of your government ID, your face, and your face with your government ID. Then of course the government will offer you an easier way to do this, sign in with your global digital ID. It's coming people, they concocted this idea at Davos. "Think of the children!" The sad thin

      • It is about ending anonymity on the internet. Discord for example is requiring your face and ID to "prove you're an adult", in countries where these laws were implemented.

        Does Discord serve a valid purpose? (Yes. Key word is valid, since we all know what the fuck Trolly McTrollface loves to do all day, every day.)

        Would that valid purpose, actually benefit with ending anonymity on Discord?

        Not all business decisions, are running in 4D Orwellian macro-color. Some are more black and white.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Z80a ( 971949 )

          It is directly linked to gaming communities in general, so the "to protect kids" excuse glue better with it.
          But as you can see with the article, they're already slipping the same thing to everywhere else.
          Let's say the purpose here was to be the test lab rat.

      • You already do not have anonymity on the internet.

    • The trouble is its cant be handled by parents , kids are too savvy. And no, I dont know what the solution is either other than physically depriving them of their phones because this ban will work as well as it has in australia , ie not very well.

    • Re:Rock and a Hard Place of Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @03:55PM (#66194206)

      Undoubtedly social media use by kids is problematic and it's not something that can be handled just by parents. If all the other kids are communicating through social media, banning your kid is isolating them from their peer group.

      But requiring identification to use communication tools is bound to be implemented poorly. Type your age doesn't work, but anything more rigorous is step closer to an Orwellian future.

      I agree. And I think age restrictions are a Band-Aid solution anyway. What we really need to look at is the harm that social media are causing to society in general, Then we need to overhaul social media with a view making it a net benefit to society instead of a benefit to tech broligarchs to the detriment of society.

      Of course, the government of the most influential country in the world is owned by the uber-rich to an even greater extent than the governments of other countries. With the people who benefit most from destroying society in the name of profit also being the ones ultimately in charge, we may be kinda fucked.

      • Then we need to overhaul social media with a view making it a net benefit to society instead of a benefit to tech broligarchs to the detriment of society.

        That's easy. Keep it a private company that isn't beholden to unending greed at every higher share price.

        Broligarchs are in business for one reason. They don't create the content. They don't even give a fuck about the content. They only care about how addicted you are to the product.

        And the addiction factor, won't change until the greed factor does. They measure success in dollars, not detriments. Either remove the fiduciary duty profit motive, or learn to expect the worst of it.

    • Maybe it would be easier to just ban anyone under 16 from having a smartphone or tablet.

    • If all the other kids are communicating through social media, banning your kid is isolating them from their peer group.

      * GenX stands up and goes outside *

      * touches grass *

      * drinks from the hose *

      * chews dirt *

      Yup. Thought so.

      A clarification from the feral generation; This is banning your kid from ADDICTION. And an underage ban would mean ALL the other kids would be affected in the same way, so ALL of them will be forced into an actual underage, underdeveloped, immature peer group. (unlike the Epstein-approved ratio of kids:pedos in "kids" games sponsored by stock markets today).

      We have an addiction issue to address. And

  • Please show us every paper you got (Score:3)

    by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @02:36PM (#66193976)

    To prove that you're an adult, that is!
    We're 100% not storing it anywhere, and this won't be used by Starmer to put you in jail for criticizing his face.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Grimolfr ( 9749826 )
      Aye my favorite is when they want proof I'm over 16. And somehow the fact that I've had an active account with them for over 20 years doesn't automatically cover that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Z80a ( 971949 )

        Come on, it's obvious that the account were from your parents, like an inherited treasure

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zlives ( 2009072 )

        just tell them you are 5 and sue them for allowing access. i mean at least in US we had a rule for under 13's that no one enforced.

      • Shared accounts are not uncommon.... but irrelevant.

        I have been going to the same supermarket for years, and even in my 40's I was still required to show ID to buy alcohol.

        History is not the same as meeting the obligations under the law.

  • I support this sort of ban in principle. But the fact remains that parents' influence and guidance is much for effective than laws and teaching children how to navigate the online world, how to use it appropriately, and how not to be harmed by it. That includes parents leading by example too. Putting phones away when they are interacting with their children, at meal times, etc. And being a part of their children's online life.

    But the big societal problem is that our modern economy's pursuit of money at al

    • I think it's well accepted this isn't a One True Solution - the government's even acknowledged that people will find ways around it. However, it's the first step of many to rebalance the "settings" handed to society by some tech bros, which we've all just accepted as being "okay", even though there was no research or evidence presented to say that 13 years old was "okay" (and we've since found out that contrary evidence was withheld, and new evidence now exists to suggest there are lots of harms to young pe

  • So does a "blanket ban" mean everyone in the UK will need to provide government ID to access YouTube?

    Wow, that will be a boon for advertisers... Not so much for the parents.

  • That's fine. And probably enough. (Score:3)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @02:50PM (#66194016)

    Teens will find a way, like they always have. You can't stop the tide completely, but that's not necessary. Probably not desirable, either. You just need to slow it down. Moderate it. Like we've done for decades on other problematic things in society, I couldn't buy a playboy back in the early eighties... at least until I found the Chinese corner store owner who would look the other way. No shade - he just happened to be Chinese. Interesting factoid... it was usually easier for kids to get pot than booze...

    There is not much of a downside here. Being identified might even curb the "asshole in waiting" inside of angsty teens and shave off the worst online behaviours.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      it was usually easier for kids to get pot than booze...

      Yeah. Pot market back then: illegal. Booze market: legal but regulated. Much more for businesses to lose in the latter case.

      One good argument for legalizing skunk.

      • But unlike social media, back then I was not carrying around a hip flask while at school.
        And the vast majority of kids were also not smoking weed

        Social media is the equivalent of the hip flask and every kids is exposed to it.

        "Back in my day" is a worthless argument.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          And the vast majority of kids were also not smoking weed

          Are they now?

          I missed Woodstock by about a decade. But when I made it into the school music program (high school and college), we were all looking back and mourning the demise of our creative heros. Either due to actual deaths or the inevitable menal decline that turned their creative output into garbage.

          And no, we are not going to pass legislation to make weed smokers a protected class, like the ADA. You show up for work stoned and you're fired.

  • to bring democracy and freedumb ?

  • Good start (Score:3)

    by Pimpy ( 143938 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @02:59PM (#66194044)

    Now do over 16s next.

  • I don't have strong opinions about this one way or another, and I surely don't claim to have any answers, but I'm sort of compulsive about numbers and statistics. So:
    * "Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show [congress.gov]" -- but do they?
    * "'Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse,' the [Facebook] researchers said in a March 2020 slide". But what about the other 68%? Did they feel better? Or were they unaffected?

  • Bluesky is not banned (Score:3)

    by fabioalcor ( 1663783 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @03:14PM (#66194082)

    Interesting, isn't it?

  • Social media is bad for adults. This has nothing to do with children what so ever. It has to do with pushing for more identity verification to permanent identified each and every person with every single online request they make. It's the telescreen spying on everything you do. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with protecting youths is not realizing what's really in play here.

    • I love that you think Starmer has somehow managed to keep all of that quite despite his own party having knives out for him right now.

      Many people pushing for it, and I suspect many MPs do genuinely want to help children. Just because the outcome is bad doesn't mean there's a simplistic conspiracy behind it.

  • All this will do is tie you to a digital identity so that the government can link every adult to their online accounts, and then by proxy to their email, phone, other identities online, etc. And all of this under the guise of protecting children again.

    • And you think it does not happen already ?
      Social media only survives by tracking exactly who you are
      They already link you to your email, phone, other identities, etc etc that is why they buy and sell your information

      They know who you are, you age, your gender, your sexual orientation, your religion, your income range, your family, where you work, EVERY THING, because they need to feed their machine. Why do you think Social media is getting into AI, so their information can be even closer to the exact

  • Letting 0-10 year olds read social media (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @03:52PM (#66194196) Homepage Journal

    Letting 0-10 year olds read social media: It's right beneath binge drinking while pregnant and leaded fuel in terms of intellectual harm to children. Maybe 16 is not the right cut off, 12 is probably easier to agree to. But an argument for cutting it off at 25 probably exists as well.

    I'm not sure even adults should be on social much if at all. But generally society lets adults decide for themselves how much of they should drink and gamble and otherwise harm themselves to a degree. To a degree in that most countries don't tolerate cocaine and heroine usage. These are roughly agreed to limits in societies throughout the world, although not quite universal.

    So I guess the question is: will social media laws in the UK and other commonwealth nations be at the extreme like the laws for drinking alcohol for most adults in the UAE? Or are the limits going to be accepted as normal and rational like laws for minors in the vast majority of nations?

    • Why 12 ?
      There is a hell of a lot of complexities to social media, connectivity , privacy , ect etc etc

      You don't teach 99% of kids Fourier Transforms, why, because they do not have the mathematical background to support that teaching

      Likewise puberty has enough issues in its self, body dysmorphia , bodily changes, sexual desires, staring independence of thought and action
      And you want daily dopamine hits etc etc etc while this brain development happens ? I mean WTF... There is enough knowledge by kid

      • Why 12 ?
        There is a hell of a lot of complexities to social media, connectivity , privacy , ect etc etc

        Cultural and legal reasons more than scientific ones. 12 year olds can work in my country (California, US). With limited hours and required to attend full time schooling, unless the 12 or 13 year old is a high school graduate, then can work the same hours as an adult. In another state (my home state), you can legally drive under very specific circumstances at age 14.

        The cultural angle is that in Western countries going back to at least the Middle Ages considered seven to be the "age of reason". And it was a

        • The earlier ages were also because:
          Life expectancy was lower
          There was a need for the income
          And life was a whole lot less complex back then.
          But life was a whole lot less precious back then too, people did jobs knowing they were likely to die, and it was casually accepted.It was accepted that the youngest child would become "the bread winner", so kids were sent down coal mines etc.

          Some people will also point out the marriages at age 12 were common....and so we have PDFs marrying children in various s
  • How could they have "carefully looked at" something they didn't find?
    https://www.techradar.com/comp... [techradar.com]

  • Do the people of the UK (i.e. all those people who voted at the last election and will vote at the next election) actually want this ban or is the government saying "we know people don't want this but it is necessary to keep kids safe online so we are implementing it anyway"?

    • Do the people of the UK actually want this ban

      Probably quite a lot do, yeah. Most people are astoundingly ignorant about technical things and neither no nor care about the broader consequences. So you have to put in your ID to use arsebook. So what? It's hardly any inconvenience and anyway we've got to do something. And this is something. So we've got to do it.

  • "as a parent, as much as a Prime Minister" (Score:3)

    by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Monday June 15, 2026 @05:59PM (#66194506)
    I get his confusion, he is a parent and he represents the government. However those are supposed to be two separate functions, unless people want a paternalistic government which always knows best and is never wrong (like North Korea). Perhaps communism would work great in UK, everyone works to the best of their ability, gives all their earnings (100% tax) to the government, which will in turn dole out allowances according to each person's needs, enforce curfews, feed them only foods best for them (and their productivity), etc.

  • Bluesky (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wdr1 ( 31310 ) * <wdr1&pobox,com> on Monday June 15, 2026 @06:08PM (#66194536) Homepage Journal

    Does anyone know why Bluesky isn't included in the list?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Himmy32 ( 650060 )
      The words "would include" implies that it's not a complete list. So almost assuredly it and other smaller services like Truth Social would be included but aren't noteworthy enough to make the short list.

  • Another over reaction based on politics and parent apathy. Rather than be involved in your kids life and supervise the online issues, we'll just block ALL online activity. Scientist have been convinced that youth brains were being "rewired" but have failed to find any proof. It's not the electronic activity that is hurting them, its' the LACK of responsible social interaction. They grow up lacking a conscience or empathy because they never see other "real" people or suffer consequences for their bad interac

  • ... mental illness. Commercial "social" media is a thing that really shouldn't exist. Especially since they're just glorified versions of already existing protocols. Limiting access to these for youngsters is a good thing. The teenies won't listen of course, but that's beside the point. It's about being able to sue those corps into next wednesday if they choose to target minors. And that's a good thing.

  • To prove your age, will have to provide ID. Now they will know everything you post.

    • They already track you.
      If you are not paying for the service YOU are the product.
      That means they track you, track and trade every bit of information they can get about you, that is how they make their money.

      If you want to be anonymous then best you ditch the computer, go live in the back of beyond and barter for everything you need.

  • Social media should be run at a more local level with little to no algorithms beyond some filters the user can customize to fit their needs. Social media could be run at the school level or possibly the community level. In order to be on the platform, you have to belong to the school or community. You don't need to be anonymous from your classmates on a community social media website.

    This vastly cuts down on the bad apples that are on this platform. This would be the child platform. Of course spooks will st

Slashdot Top Deals

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Close