Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised “decisive” action to address the impact of social media on children in the UK, following a meeting with bereaved parents and campaigners pressing for stricter online safety measures.

Get today's headlines by email

Speaking after talks at Downing Street on Tuesday, Sir Keir said the government was committed to acting as a consultation on children’s social media use reached its final day. Campaigners have urged ministers to introduce tougher restrictions, including a possible ban on social media access for under-16s.

Parents who attended the meeting said they welcomed the opportunity to present their concerns directly to the prime minister, but some remained doubtful about whether the government would introduce strong enough measures.

Calls for tougher restrictions

Among those attending was Ellen Roome, whose son Jools Sweeney died aged 14 in 2022. She said she remained unconvinced that meaningful change would follow.

“I think we’ve heard it so many times before,” she told the BBC outside Number 10, adding that she would stay “sceptical” until concrete measures were introduced.

Roome and other campaigners urged the government to raise the minimum age for access to social media platforms considered harmful to 16.

Mariano Janin, whose daughter Mia died by suicide aged 14 in 2021 after experiencing bullying at school and online, also attended the meeting. He said he wanted to believe action would follow but argued that the current “status quo” remained unchanged while technology companies continued rapidly introducing new products, including AI chatbots.

Parents described the talks as a “listening exercise”, saying they had outlined their concerns in detail in an effort to prevent further harm to children online.

Government considers next steps

The government’s consultation on children’s social media use closes on Tuesday evening after receiving more than 80,000 submissions from parents, young people, charities and campaign groups.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would publish its response during the summer, with new protections for under-16s expected by the end of 2026.

Measures under consideration include stronger age verification checks, night-time app curfews, and limiting features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling. Officials are also examining whether restrictions should apply to platforms including Roblox Corporation’s Roblox and Discord.

Kendall said ministers wanted to ensure any new rules were effective and durable.

“We’ve got to get this right, and we’ve got to make it last,” she told the BBC.

Debate over bans and platform controls

Former health secretary Wes Streeting added pressure on the government by backing calls for a social media ban for under-16s. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Streeting said regulators and politicians had been “asleep at the wheel” while technology firms developed addictive platforms for children.

He compared the behaviour of large technology companies to the tactics once used by the tobacco industry, arguing that the “precautionary principle” should apply to social media regulation.

Others, however, warned against blanket bans. Police leaders and industry representatives have argued that regulation should focus on specific high-risk features rather than entire platforms.

Donya Soni-Clark of trade association TechUK said restrictions targeting features such as private messaging would be more effective than banning individual apps.

Meanwhile, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges called for doctors to routinely ask children about their device and social media use, citing concerns over mental and physical health impacts linked to online content.

Pressure on technology firms

Campaigners and child safety groups have also called for technology companies to align content standards with age ratings used by the British Board of Film Classification.

Some campaigners pointed to Australia’s move to restrict social media access for under-16s, although reports that children had still managed to bypass controls have raised concerns over how effective such laws can be.

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has said age verification should be managed at device level so underage users are prevented from downloading apps.

Kendall insisted the government would continue with reforms even if technology companies opposed them.

“No one’s going to stop me from doing what I think is right for this country,” she said.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 27 May 2026

View full article

Blah blah blah!

Lots of words - no action.

Plus ca change!

Censorship and control.

First kids then adults.

Can't have people sharing opinions, ideas and reading the truth. No that simply wouldn't do.

Like that NZ leftist nutter Jacinda Ardern said when she said the quiet part out loud "we will continue to be your single source of truth". Dystopian. Straight out of 1984.

Not the least bit surprised that the tyrant Starmer would get on board.

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Censorship and control.

First kids then adults.

Can't have people sharing opinions, ideas and reading the truth. No that simply wouldn't do.

Like that NZ leftist nutter Jacinda Ardern said when she said the quiet part out loud "we will continue to be your single source of truth". Dystopian. Straight out of 1984.

Not the least bit surprised that the tyrant Starmer would get on board.

Disappointingly, I tend to agree with you on this. What's happened to the concept of parental responsibility? Telling 14-15 year-olds they can't use TikTok, YouTube and Instagram will hopefully be met with disdain and will be ignored.

5 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Disappointingly, I tend to agree with you on this. What's happened to the concept of parental responsibility? Telling 14-15 year-olds they can't use TikTok, YouTube and Instagram will hopefully be met with disdain and will be ignored.

Its not very often I entertain the idea that I could be wrong about something but when you agree with me I will make an exception and rethink everything to make sure I was right.

OK. Rethunk. Turns out I was right again.

Lets face it this isnt about saving the children. Its a trial run for when they roll this out to adults for platforms like X that allow the free speech and exposés they detest.

Before long their BBC and its ironically named "verify" service will be our only source of "truth".

15 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Disappointingly, I tend to agree with you on this. What's happened to the concept of parental responsibility? Telling 14-15 year-olds they can't use TikTok, YouTube and Instagram will hopefully be met with disdain and will be ignored.

Most teenagers are a lot smarter, 'digitally' than we think and I am sure can find a way around any 'controls' put in place!

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Censorship and control.

First kids then adults.

Can't have people sharing opinions, ideas and reading the truth. No that simply wouldn't do.

Like that NZ leftist nutter Jacinda Ardern said when she said the quiet part out loud "we will continue to be your single source of truth". Dystopian. Straight out of 1984.

Not the least bit surprised that the tyrant Starmer would get on board.

Tedious Jonny, tedious.

'Let me be clear', anything to stifle free speech and our freedoms and Starmer will be on it like a rash.

15 minutes ago, BusyB said:

Tedious Jonny, tedious.

Anything intelligent to add to the debate or just felt the urge to stalk me again ? 😀

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Most teenagers are a lot smarter, 'digitally' than we think and I am sure can find a way around any 'controls' put in place!

Yes they will that's why the government will then push for mandatory digital ID to access

anything and everything and still the kids will get round that by using someone else's ID quite possibly leading to that hapless ID holder being locked up for years for saying something stupid or disagreeing with government policy on 'social media' that they didn't even post.

This is in no way shape or form about 'protecting the children' its about total control over the population by a hated regime.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Its not very often I entertain the idea that I could be wrong about something

That is very very clear Jonny. It is also very obvious when we read your paranoid conspiracy nonsense daily.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Lets face it this isnt about saving the children. Its a trial run for when they roll this out to adults for platforms like X that allow the free speech and exposés they detest.

Before long their BBC and its ironically named "verify" service will be our only source of "truth".

See?

This should be nothing to do with the government and all to do with parents.

It seems the art of parenting is lost on so many people.

If parents are going to buy these devices for their kids, they should also set out the rules. Kids need to be told about the dark side of the internet. They need to be told to speak up if they've seen something that's not right. Not to have secrets from their parents sbout their browsing history.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

That is very very clear Jonny. It is also very obvious when we read your paranoid conspiracy nonsense daily.

See?

Oh look. Another stalker with nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

Jog on son.

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

This should be nothing to do with the government and all to do with parents.

Exactly correct..that is why its vitally important that everyone understands what the real goal

is when they push this narrative that the children are in danger..its not about the children at all.

I remember at school in the late 1940s early 1950s we kids searched for and got hold of all manner of 'inappropriate' material. Kids were curious then, and always will be. It didn't mean we all grew up as murderers and rapists. Censorship will achieve nothing. Leave them kids alone !

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

I remember at school in the late 1940s early 1950s we kids searched for and got hold of all manner of 'inappropriate' material. Kids were curious then, and always will be. It didn't mean we all grew up as murderers and rapists. Censorship will achieve nothing. Leave them kids alone !

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the idea I am also not entirely against it as I can see what it is trying to do. And your comparison is invalid.

In the 40s and 50s you didn't have LLMs which could help or even encourage your kids to commit suicide.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/openai-chatgpt-suicide-lawsuit-invs-vis

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/31/teenager-asked-chatgpt-most-successful-ways-take-life-inquest-told

You didn't have the obsession with likes and the online bullying that goes with social media. I don't know how many suicides there have been due to online and cyber bullying, it is a horrible phenomenon.

It should be the parents' responsibility to protect their children, definitely. But some parents are working 2-3 jobs to try to survive. And, let's face it, some people are just really <deleted> or very absent parents - don't their children also need protecting?

So whilst I am not sure censorship is the answer, maybe there is some merit to the thinking. I mean social media is already limited to over 13s (in theory, but no actual checks). You wouldn't get rid of age limits for smoking or drinking because "it should be the parent's responsibility" would you? Because not all kids grow up to be alcoholics.

21 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the idea I am also not entirely against it as I can see what it is trying to do. And your comparison is invalid.

In the 40s and 50s you didn't have LLMs which could help or even encourage your kids to commit suicide.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/openai-chatgpt-suicide-lawsuit-invs-vis

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/31/teenager-asked-chatgpt-most-successful-ways-take-life-inquest-told

You didn't have the obsession with likes and the online bullying that goes with social media. I don't know how many suicides there have been due to online and cyber bullying, it is a horrible phenomenon.

It should be the parents' responsibility to protect their children, definitely. But some parents are working 2-3 jobs to try to survive. And, let's face it, some people are just really <deleted> or very absent parents - don't their children also need protecting?

So whilst I am not sure censorship is the answer, maybe there is some merit to the thinking. I mean social media is already limited to over 13s (in theory, but no actual checks). You wouldn't get rid of age limits for smoking or drinking because "it should be the parent's responsibility" would you? Because not all kids grow up to be alcoholics.

Ban the websites, rather than ban the internet

58 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Ban the websites, rather than ban the internet

No one's banning the internet Nick.

Can you point me to where they said they are banning the internet?

29 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

No one's banning the internet Nick.

Can you point me to where they said they are banning the internet?

I did mean :

Ban the websites, rather than ban/restrict (the childing using) the internet

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I did mean :

Ban the websites, rather than ban/restrict (the childing using) the internet

So you would ban social media? Rather than restrict its usage? You're contradicting yourself.

Would you ban alcohol instead of banning kids form buying it?

Even the great firewall of China is not impenetrable,I read a good article somewhere about how those who got past the firewall ended up being far more 'inquisitive' than they would have been if there was no censorship in the first place.

5 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

So you would ban social media? Rather than restrict its usage? You're contradicting yourself.

Would you ban alcohol instead of banning kids form buying it?

What I did mean was :

Ban the (suicide ) websites, rather than ban/restrict (the childing using) the internet