Social media is a powerful tool and it is easy to see why children and young people are drawn to it. It provides a platform through which they can stay connected with their family and friends, express themselves and find communities where they feel understood. Unfortunately, we also see too many instances where young people are being exposed to harmful content, abusive behaviour and attitudes that shape how they understand relationships.
Changes are needed that allow young people to benefit from social media while protecting them from the risks that can accompany its use.
We were therefore encouraged to see the government’s recent announcement of a series of new measures that are designed to make the online world safer for young people. They are an important first step, but it is important to stress that legislation alone will not overcome this problem.
The government plans to prevent social media companies from providing their services to children under 16 from spring 2027. The restrictions are expected to cover platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and X.
Children will still be able to access online learning, news, gaming and messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal. However, potentially harmful features, including livestreaming and communication with strangers, will also be restricted for under-16s across a wider range of online services.
Further restrictions have been announced for 16- and 17-year-olds. Social media platforms will be required to introduce a default overnight curfew between midnight and 6am. Features designed to keep people scrolling, including autoplay and continuously personalised feeds, will also be switched off by default. Older teenagers will be able to change these settings themselves.
The first regulations are expected to be presented to Parliament before the end of 2026, with the measures due to come into force in spring 2027.
The government’s consultation received more than 116,000 responses. Nine in ten parents who responded supported a minimum social media age of 16, while two-thirds of young people agreed that under-16s should be restricted from at least some social media platforms.
Concern is not limited to the amount of time children spend online. There is growing evidence that social media can expose young people to misogyny, violence and unhealthy ideas about relationships.
Research by Women’s Aid found that children and young people who had seen content from misogynistic influencers were almost five times more likely to view physically hurting someone as acceptable if the person apologised afterwards. The research also found that exposure to this content could contribute to controlling behaviours, stalking and unwanted attention being viewed as romantic.
Social media does not automatically cause someone to behave abusively. However, repeatedly seeing violence, control and misogyny presented as acceptable can normalise harmful attitudes. It can make it harder for young people to recognise the difference between healthy and unhealthy behaviour in their own relationships.
While Women’s Aid has welcomed the intention behind the ban, it has also stressed that it cannot be treated as a complete solution. Children are technologically savvy and some will continue to find ways around the safeguards to continue accessing social media. Technology companies must therefore not use the new restrictions as an excuse to avoid improving their platforms.
After all, we know from other examples around the world that enforcing a ban is by no means easy. Research published by the Molly Rose Foundation highlighted that, in Australia, 61% of young people aged between 12 and 15 who had social media accounts before the country introduced its own restrictions could still access at least one of the platforms afterwards.
This does not mean that restrictions should not be introduced. It shows why they must be supported by effective age checks, strong enforcement, education and continued pressure on social media companies.
Parents must also be given information about what the regulations can and cannot achieve. A ban must not create a false sense of security or suggest that children will no longer face online risks.
We strongly welcome the government’s efforts to protect children and young people online. However, responsibility cannot sit solely with the government, with parents, or with young people themselves.
Social media companies have a duty to design safer platforms. They need to respond much more quickly to reports of abuse. Decisive action needs to be taken against accounts that are used to threaten, harass or control others. If companies are unwilling to do so, Ofcom must step in and ensure that they meet their legal responsibilities or face meaningful consequences for failing to do so.
We know from our own experience of supporting those experiencing domestic abuse that social media provides perpetrators with another channel through which they can monitor, intimidate or continue their campaign of abuse. We do not believe it should be the responsibility of survivors to withdraw from online spaces just because platforms have failed to act against those responsible.
Children and young people also need education that helps them recognise misogyny, challenge harmful content and understand what a healthy relationship looks like. Restrictions can reduce exposure, but education gives young people the confidence to question what they see and seek support when something doesn’t feel right.
Social media should be a place where people can connect with friends, family and communities. It should never be allowed to become a space where misogyny, violence or abuse is accepted as normal.
