Column: Clinton Rogers on a social media ban for under-16s

I’m approaching 70, and I admit I’m a sucker for Facebook.

I am scrolling it even before I get out of bed.

So, I am trying to be measured and unbiased as I write this piece, looking at the merits (or otherwise) of banning social media for under-16s, as announced by the Prime Minister.

Australia led the way last December, enforcing a prohibition that forced 10 of the largest social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and X, to lock out young users or face huge fines.

Yet the latest research suggests it simply isn’t working.

Apparently, up to 70 per cent of under-16s remain on major platforms, getting around the restriction in a variety of ingenious ways, including wearing lots of makeup (even fake beards!) to confuse "age-estimation" software.

For sure it is one of those issues that divides people almost instantly.

Some see it as a long-overdue intervention to protect children.

Others say it’s another example of the nanny state sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

There is certainly growing evidence that heavy social media use can be harmful to young people.

In 2023 a review published in BMC Psychology found that excessive screen time was associated with poorer mental well-being, with social media use linked to higher risks of depression, particularly among teenage girls.

Yet the evidence is not entirely one-sided.

Earlier this year, a UK government-backed review concluded that there is still a shortage of high-quality evidence proving that social media directly causes mental health problems.

The thing is, every generation worries about the habits of the next.

In the 1970s parents fretted about television.

Children spent hours parked in front of the set watching Blue Peter, football or Saturday evening entertainment.

Others became obsessed with pop stars, comics or pinball machines.

There was no shortage of distractions.

The difference today is that social media never switches off.

Television programmes ended.

The internet follows children into the classroom, the bedroom and, increasingly, into the early hours of the morning.

Whether that justifies a legal ban is another matter.

As Australia has discovered, enforcement can be difficult, and determined teenagers will almost certainly find ways around restrictions.

There’s also the risk that a rushed ban could simply push young people towards less regulated online spaces.

But asking whether social media is changing childhood for the worse is a reasonable question in an age when technology companies know more about capturing attention than any television producer of the 1970s could ever have imagined.

I’m going back to Facebook to see what people think!