Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to ban social media access for children under 16 across the UK, saying the move is needed to protect young people from harmful online content, bullying and potential mental health risks.

Get today's headlines by email

Speaking at Downing Street, Starmer said the measure would deliver “real change for our children and our future”, arguing that the benefits of social media no longer outweighed the risks faced by many young users.

Wider Restrictions Planned

Under the proposals, children under 16 would be barred from using major social media platforms. The government also intends to introduce restrictions on other online products, including gaming applications, with measures such as removing the ability for young users to communicate with strangers.

Starmer acknowledged that social media offers benefits for young people but said the government had concluded that a complete ban was the best option.

“This is not something I do lightly,” he said, adding that government decisions often involve difficult choices and that protecting children had become the priority.

Legislation Expected This Year

The prime minister said the government aims to pass legislation before the end of the year, with the restrictions expected to take effect next spring.

The announcement comes as concerns grow over the impact of online platforms on children’s wellbeing and safety. Starmer presented the policy as part of a broader effort to give children a fairer and safer environment in which to grow up.

Addressing concerns that teenagers may find ways around the restrictions, as some have reportedly done in Australia following similar measures, Starmer said the possibility of circumvention should not prevent action.

He compared the proposal to existing age restrictions on alcohol sales, arguing that laws serve not only as rules but also as statements of societal values. He said the ban would help shape expectations among parents and children and contribute to a safer online environment.

Support From Campaigners and Parents

The announcement was made before an audience that included campaigners advocating stronger protections for children online, including parents who had lost children. Starmer thanked those campaigners for their efforts and said he would not compromise on children's safety and happiness.

He acknowledged that implementing and enforcing the ban would be challenging but said the government had consulted widely, reviewed available evidence and examined approaches taken by countries such as Australia.

Tech Industry Concerns

Asked whether the policy could provoke opposition from major US technology companies, Starmer rejected suggestions that the move was anti-technology.

He said supporting technological innovation and artificial intelligence could coexist with stronger protections for children, arguing that the development of new technologies should not come at the expense of young people's safety.

The government also said that responses to its “growing up in the online world” consultation showed strong public backing for tougher measures, with nine in 10 parents supporting a minimum age of 16 for access to social media platforms.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 15 June 2026

View full article

Hmm, big announcement about something controversial that isn't due to be legislated on or implemented until next year, and will probably be u-turned on when it faces the inevitable backlash due to being completely unworkable anyway. I wonder if there is anything else going on that Starmer wants to be buried in the news...

"Ukranian rent boys have been found guilty of arson attacks on Starmers property"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v2yd8vk04o

How do "journalists" keep falling for the same predictable and tired tricks over and over and over again?

12 hours ago, James105 said:

Hmm, big announcement about something controversial that isn't due to be legislated on or implemented until next year, and will probably be u-turned on when it faces the inevitable backlash due to being completely unworkable anyway. I wonder if there is anything else going on that Starmer wants to be buried in the news...

"Ukranian rent boys have been found guilty of arson attacks on Starmers property"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v2yd8vk04o

How do "journalists" keep falling for the same predictable and tired tricks over and over and over again?

bought and paid for by your left wing liberals !

Utterly pathetic. In Australia similar legislation has failed to the extent that over 60% of the under 16s have found a way round it, as kids do. This is not an issue for govt, rather it is for parents to control the viewing habits of their children. It's a tough task as youngsters are, and always have been, interested in so called adult material be it violent or sexual.

Teenagers might not be 'astute', but they are digitally smart when it comes down to smartphones and apps.

Once this ban comes into effect, how long will it take for them to find a way round it and tell everyone else?

11 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Utterly pathetic. In Australia similar legislation has failed to the extent that over 60% of the under 16s have found a way round it, as kids do. This is not an issue for govt, rather it is for parents to control the viewing habits of their children. It's a tough task as youngsters are, and always have been, interested in so called adult material be it violent or sexual.

Yeah, but it's not about kids, it's about monitoring the internet and control of adults.

If you preface "but it's to protect children" for every authorarian law, it's easier for the public to accept.

The UK government doesn't give a flying one about the safety of children.

If they did, they wouldn't be letting the BBC pedo rings or Pakistani grooming gangs exist.

16 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Utterly pathetic. In Australia similar legislation has failed to the extent that over 60% of the under 16s have found a way round it, as kids do. This is not an issue for govt, rather it is for parents to control the viewing habits of their children. It's a tough task as youngsters are, and always have been, interested in so called adult material be it violent or sexual.

Youngsters only get a sexual interest when they reach puberty . Before that, no interest at all .

Anyway, there are already measures in place to stop youngsters seeing that . But then again, if they want to watch that kind of thing, then why stop them ?

This is nothing new.

Just more control from the state.

Surprised that age 18 isn't used as that's the age of consent, voting etc. what will the government do? Use a sign

Are you aged 16 or more?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Deflection to a non-event by Starmers spin doctors.

As if the UK doesn't have far more pressing things to be dealing with, he's pathetic.

35 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

it is for parents to control the viewing habits of their children.

I agree with you 100%. It's up to parents to school their children not the government.

I see it like I saw it in Australia....

One more step towards the dystopian nanny state as laid down by the Fabian Society that both Starmer and Albanese belong to.

Thank fornicate the teenagers in Australia and I trust in England do what teenagers do .... keep pushing that envelope

Kids are far smarter with technology than most adults; they would rapidly find a way around any blocks, and it certainly is, or should be, low on the list of priorities.

Why isn't the clown focusing on a bulging welfare state bill, mass immigration, knife crime, defence budgets, and public unrest?

But instead, he gets busy with online behaviour of under-16s; he's a cretin.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Yeah, but it's not about kids, it's about monitoring the internet and control of adults.

If you preface "but it's to protect children" for every authorarian law, it's easier for the public to accept.

The UK government doesn't give a flying one about the safety of children.

If they did, they wouldn't be letting the BBC pedo rings or Pakistani grooming gangs exist.

Quite so the Pakistani grooming gangs have been in operation for over35 years and are still going strong!

Social media like Facebook etc have been operating just over 20 years.

Why haven't they banned the grooming gangs?

A ban for X but not for Bluesky.😄

2 tier Keir banning free speech platforms that are allowed to support right wing ideologies but allowing access to leftist nutjob platforms.

So now we have 2 tier social media bans to go with the 2 tier justice system, policing, job and Uni access etc. etc.

I'm surprised he doesn't just ban all social media for white people only. The racist tyrant.

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A ban for X but not for Bluesky.😄

2 tier Keir banning free speech platforms that are allowed to support right wing ideologies but allowing access to leftist nutjob platforms.

So now we have 2 tier social media bans to go with the 2 tier justice system, policing, job and Uni access etc. etc.

I'm surprised he doesn't just ban all social media for white people only. The racist tyrant.

You see conspiracies in everything don't you! A quick search will show you why:
"Bluesky is exempt from this policy primarily due to its decentralized nature and lack of addictive engagement algorithms."

22 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You see conspiracies in everything don't you! A quick search will show you why:
"Bluesky is exempt from this policy primarily due to its decentralized nature and lack of addictive engagement algorithms."

Not sure where that quote came from but not even you could believe that nonsense.😄

It's exempt because it is left wing and supportive of the tyrant Starmer.

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Not sure where that quote came from but not even you could believe that nonsense.😄

It's exempt because it is left wing and supportive of the tyrant Starmer.

Musk didn't help himself by refusing to ban AI pornographic images of children on X.

I doubt any under-16s ever use X or the very dull Bluesky. Is Threads being banned too?

16 hours ago, James105 said:

"Ukranian rent boys have been found guilty of arson attacks on Starmers property"

The BBC is reporting the Russians sent the Ukranian twinks to damage 2 Tier Keirs back door.

That's really the best they can come up with. 😃

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The BBC is reporting the Russians sent the Ukranian twinks to damage 2 Tier Keirs back door.

That's really the best they can come up with. 😃

You see conspiracies in everything don't you!

2 hours ago, wombat said:

I agree with you 100%. It's up to parents to school their children not the government.

I see it like I saw it in Australia....

This argument quickly falls down. We have laws on child restraints in cars. But surely it is up to the parents to make sure their kids are safe in a car, not the government. Right? We have laws preventing children from riding motorcycles. Shouldn't it be up to the parents?

Lets face it some people are just really <deleted> parents and they can't be trusted to do their job. Millions of them in the UK. There are <deleted> parents everywhere. Shouldn't their children be protected too?

Not saying I agree with the social media ban, but I can see the logic behind the thinking. It can be a poisonous thing for young people - how many kids commit suicide each year due to cyber bullying on social media? Or grow up with low self esteem because of it and how they are treated and influenced there.

And if it keeps young males from ever coming across pond scum like Andrew Tate or that TikkyTokky bell, then the world will be a better place.

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Quite so the Pakistani grooming gangs have been in operation for over35 years and are still going strong!

Social media like Facebook etc have been operating just over 20 years.

Why haven't they banned the grooming gangs?

Absolutely.

If the primary, goal of the British establishment was purely the physical safety of children, the systemic shielding of these grooming networks by public institutions would have been brutally dismantled decades ago.

Using child protection to justify a sweeping digital tracking apparatus, while failing to stop organized, physical predators on the streets of their own towns, proves that for the political class, abstract control is far more appealing than real, high-friction law enforcement.

Starmer is a joke!

56 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

You see conspiracies in everything don't you!

We can't all be naive, yet useful idiots.

I have to admit that the UK, while having the most CCTV cameras in the world seem incapable of using them to arrest criminals. The videos from CCTV are all blurry and pretty useless at identifying criminals.

Nothing to do with Starmer as most were introduced by Tories.

5 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Utterly pathetic. In Australia similar legislation has failed to the extent that over 60% of the under 16s have found a way round it, as kids do. This is not an issue for govt, rather it is for parents to control the viewing habits of their children. It's a tough task as youngsters are, and always have been, interested in so called adult material be it violent or sexual.

Problem is, many parents don’t engage with kids like they used to, having their own issues with social media addiction. Many shouldn’t even be parents. I can’t stand the bloke, but if this has any sort of chance of working, it is a good thing because that nonsense is affecting kid’s lives for the worse than any other single aspect today.

5 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Utterly pathetic. In Australia similar legislation has failed to the extent that over 60% of the under 16s have found a way round it, as kids do. This is not an issue for govt, rather it is for parents to control the viewing habits of their children. It's a tough task as youngsters are, and always have been, interested in so called adult material be it violent or sexual.

Exactly and banning it will make them want to use it even more because forbidden fruits taste so much better….

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

A ban for X but not for Bluesky.😄

2 tier Keir banning free speech platforms that are allowed to support right wing ideologies but allowing access to leftist nutjob platforms.

So now we have 2 tier social media bans to go with the 2 tier justice system, policing, job and Uni access etc. etc.

I'm surprised he doesn't just ban all social media for white people only. The racist tyrant.

It now seems that Bluesky is included in the ban (according to Sky News).

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The BBC is reporting the Russians sent the Ukranian twinks to damage 2 Tier Keirs back door.

That's really the best they can come up with. 😃

It seems Yaxley-Lennon's fingerprints are all over the conspiracy theories!

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15902423/Russian-spy-orchestrated-arson-attacks-PM-started-wild-conspiracy-theory-revenge-two-Ukrainian-rent-boys.html

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

It now seems that Bluesky is included in the ban (according to Sky News).

It seems Yaxley-Lennon's fingerprints are all over the conspiracy theories!

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15902423/Russian-spy-orchestrated-arson-attacks-PM-started-wild-conspiracy-theory-revenge-two-Ukrainian-rent-boys.html

Shhhhhhh, don't spoil his "two tier", "left wing" conspiracy nonsense. He needs it!

22 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Youngsters only get a sexual interest when they reach puberty . Before that, no interest at all .

Anyway, there are already measures in place to stop youngsters seeing that . But then again, if they want to watch that kind of thing, then why stop them ?

Not where I come from.I can clearly remember tossing my mate off at school when we were about 8.

21 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

This argument quickly falls down. We have laws on child restraints in cars. But surely it is up to the parents to make sure their kids are safe in a car, not the government. Right? We have laws preventing children from riding motorcycles. Shouldn't it be up to the parents?

Absolutely 100% up to the parents... I don't actually see it as an argument. I see it as our ability to make a parenting decision regarding our children being taken away from us by the nanny state.

2 hours ago, Keeenok Powell said:

Not where I come from.I can clearly remember tossing my mate off at school when we were about 8.

you too 🙃🤣