Around eight in 10 people support either banning under-16s from social media or forcing social media companies to remove features and content deemed inappropriate for children, according to new polling for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) conducted by YouGov.
While 44 per cent of the public prefer a ban and 39 per cent prefer tighter regulation, parents of children under 16 included in the poll favour banning social media ban over regulation by 3 to 2 (54 per cent to 36 per cent).
Only 11 per cent of adults, and seven per cent of parents with children under 16, say social media should not be banned or regulated in this way.
When it comes to deciding which social media platforms are appropriate for children, around half of adults trust parents (51 per cent) or an independent regulator (49 per cent) to make the decision. By contrast, only a fifth trust schools (22 per cent), one in six trust technology companies (16 per cent), and just one in seven trust government ministers (15 per cent).
IPPR argues that social media platforms should be assessed and restricted based on the features they use. When asked to identify the most harmful features of social media for young people, more than two thirds of adults (69 per cent) chose exposure to age-inappropriate content, such as nudity, more than half (57 per cent) chose exposure to strangers, and more than a third (36 per cent) chose algorithms learning user behaviour and recommending content.
Other features, including constant scrolling news feeds, direct messaging, AI filters and like counts, were each selected by around one in five people or fewer.
Despite this, the IPPR is calling for a blanket ban on social media for under-16s, arguing that the debate must move beyond harmful content alone. It says that the interaction between platform features and critical stages of child and adolescent development is swallowing up childhood. Young people’s identities are increasingly shaped by the rise and fall of likes, followers and Snapchat streaks, while every joke, insecurity and mistake can be documented, judged and shared, fuelling rising anxiety.
The researchers say claims that a ban would be paternalistic, or an attack on personal freedom, ignore the reality of existing protections for children. The UK already prohibits children from gambling, drinking alcohol and driving, they note. They argue there is nothing liberating about exposing young people to algorithms designed to capture, retain and monetise their attention.
Avnee Morjaria, associate director at IPPR, and a former teacher, said: “Having spent years teaching in secondary schools, I saw first-hand how childhood has changed. More and more of children’s lives are now lived through screens. Previous generations had the freedom to make mistakes, experiment and move on. Today’s children are growing up under constant scrutiny, where every insecurity can be amplified and every mistake permanently recorded.
“A blanket social media ban for under-16s is the only effective option. Not because technology is inherently bad, but because we are allowing childhood itself to be shaped for the worse by algorithms. Childhood should be defined by real-world experiences, friendships and opportunities to grow, not by an endless competition for attention and approval. The greatest loss of the smartphone age is not privacy; it’s childhood itself.”
