Britain will ban under-16s from social media apps, including TikTok and YouTube

npr ^ | 06/15/2026 | npr

[BenLurkin]

Britain will ban children under 16 from using a range of social media apps including Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube to protect young people from harmful content and excessive screen time, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday,

Starmer told a news conference that he will fight back if technology companies resist the move, and acknowledged some teens would try to find their way around a ban. But he said he is "not prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children."

"Every parent can see it with their own eyes. Social media is making children unhappy," said Starmer, who has two teenage children. "I've heard first hand from families crying out for change and we will do right by them."

The move, expected to take effect early next year, makes the U.K. part of a growing global movement to tighten online safety for children. Australia, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have introduced legislation or announced age-based restrictions or requirements for children's access to social media. France, Spain, Denmark, Thailand and South Korea are among others studying or developing similar approaches.

The U.K. plans to follow the same model for a social media ban as Australia, which last year became the first country to bar under-16s from holding social media accounts. Platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to exclude children younger than 16 could be punished with multimillion-dollar fines.

The U.K. said its ban will apply to platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but not YouTube Kids or messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal. Starmer stressed that enforcement action will target tech companies, not children.

The prime minister also said he will go further than Australia's measures.

He said the government will act to prevent strangers from contacting children on gaming and livestreaming platforms. Authorities are also considering additional measures including overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for those under 18. More details are expected next month.

Starmer's announcement met with mixed reactions

The decision follows a public comment period in which the government got 116,000 responses from parents, the tech industry and children. The number of responses was second only to one seeking input about same-sex marriage in 2012.

The vast majority of respondents — more than 90% — wanted an under-16 ban, the government said.

Esther Ghey, whose 16-year-old daughter Brianna was killed in 2023 by two teenagers who had accessed harmful content online, said the ban would "potentially save so many children's lives," but had to be accompanied by other measures.

NSPCC, a leading children's charity, praised the government's ambition but urged authorities to ensure platforms roll out "robust age checks" and effectively enforce the policy.

Others are more skeptical.

Critics including the Open Rights Group have expressed concerns about age verification companies and how users' private data is protected.

Reacting on Monday, a spokesperson for YouTube warned that a blanket social media restriction could "push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less-safe services."

Starmer acknowledged the challenges, but said success for the ban would mean "a massive drop off of children on social media" and "a cultural change, a sense that actually you can grow up differently."

Starmer, elected just under two years ago, is under pressure to step down from members of his own party over what they see as poor leadership and could face a leadership challenge in the coming days or weeks. He is seeking to bring in consequential measures that can serve as a legacy.

The U.S. has opposed the move

The ban could further inflame tensions with the U.S., which has warned that regulations should be narrow and not violate free speech protections, according to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in London. It said it was also concerned that regulations would place greater burdens on American technology companies.

Starmer said he expected to discuss the issue with U.S. President Donald Trump and other world leaders at a Group of Seven summit in France that starts Monday.

"I honestly think that across world leaders, there has always been a recognition that leaders have to take steps to protect children," he said. "I don't think that's controversial. There will always be arguments as to exactly what the limits of that are and what rules should be in place, but I don't see that as a problem."

Jon Crowcroft, a communications systems professor at the University of Cambridge, said people supporting social bans are well-meaning but probably misguided, and changes could prevent children from accessing sites they need.

"There is a real risk this will drive some users to worse sites and policing devices is close to impossible technically," Crowcroft said. "Policing platforms is far easier, if only regulators would bother."

---

TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: socialmedia; tiktok; youtube

[PGR88]

I read elsewhere that Bluesky (the deep-state controlled liberal answer to X/Twitter) was exempted.

[PghBaldy]

It is a scan to control adults. If they cared about “the children,” they would block the barbarians in boats from arriving.

[jroehl]

This is ONLY to get the kids submit to Allah.

[Tench_Coxe]

The companies would be better off shutting down service in the UK, and tell those trying to access why.

Are there legitimate concerns? Yes. Does it justify an end around to force a type of digital ID? No.

[LuxAerterna]

They’re using this as a wedge to get personal info on every social media account. What they really want is to track down so called “hate speech.”

[Leaning Right]

I wonder if Starmer will form neighborhood informer groups. You know, folks paid to make sure that the neighborhood kids weren’t going around the ban.

Informer groups were effective for the Stasi in fascist East Germany. So they should work in fascist Britain.

🔎

[butlerweave]

When these 16 year olds get the power they will go after the seniors that did this to them ,LOL

[DugwayDuke]

Can’t wait to hear how this turns out. I’m betting the kids are smarter than Starmer.

[butlerweave]

plus Starmer is completely out of his mind if he even has one to start with

[The Louiswu]

The world got along fine without tik tok and all the rest of it, we can go back to a time without social media and the world won’t stop.

[butlerweave]

Starmer says muslims are the face of the modern Britain, he nuts islam is still in the 13th century

[Leaning Right]

For every measure, there will be a countermeasure.

So will Starmer eventually give up on this stupid idea? I doubt it. More likely he’ll institute even more repressive laws.

[T.B. Yoits]

So... the Crown can’t now argue banning obscene content since children are no longer allowed on the sites.

[SaveFerris]

(They’re using this as a wedge to get personal info on every social media account.)

(What they really want is to track down so called “hate speech.”)

Digital ID
Digital Currency
Digital Tracking
Geofencing

An electronic boot 🥾🥾
on your face

You Will Own Nothing
And Be Happy! ™️

Now Eat Zee Bugs! 🦟🐜🐝🐞🦗

[lastchance]

It only starts with those under 16 years of age.

I can see why the U.K. is confused over who the actual parents are since the government already provides such a large degree of financial support to so many families. They are probably just going by the adage “Our house! Our rules!”

[lastchance]

How does that figure?

[Bon of Babble]

and acknowledged some teens would try to find their way around a ban.

No kidding. Kids got around the so-called "child-proof" filters the schools have on their computers - in about 5 minutes.

Either that, or adults will log on for them, just as they buy liquor for underage kids - high school kids used to tell me about it all the time.

[Resolute Conservative]

Social media is a plague.

[VMI70]

“Social media is a plague.”

Or as Rush used to describe it: “...a sewer”