I recently saw a Facebook post from my local MP, Neil O’Brien, raising awareness about what appeared to be a national viral social media trend encouraging school children to commit criminal acts against rival schools.
The post framed this as another example of why the UK should introduce legislation banning social media use for under-16s.
But when looking more closely, there seemed to be very little evidence that this was actually a widespread trend at all. Much of the concern appeared to be driven by anxious parents sharing warnings with each other on social media, amplifying a story that may not have had much substance in the first place.
Ironically, the panic itself seemed to be spreading through social media used by adults, rather than through any coordinated campaign by teenagers.
Yet the episode was quickly used to reinforce the argument that children themselves should be banned from social media entirely.
I’m not surprised that there is widespread support for such a ban, but I do question whether legislation focused specifically on under-16s risks becoming a token gesture to worried parents, rather than a solution to the wider societal challenges we now face as families navigating a digitally connected world.
The debate around banning social media for under-16s often focuses on the harms of technology, but it may also reflect something deeper: a growing tendency to outsource difficult parenting decisions to government regulation.
A social media ban for under-16s typically refers to legislation preventing children from creating or using accounts on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, or Facebook.
Several countries are already exploring or implementing similar restrictions. For example, Australia recently introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to verify user age.
Why a Social Media Ban May Miss the Real Problem
Calls to ban social media for under-16s are often driven by legitimate concerns about safety and mental health. But critics argue that a blanket ban raises several issues:
- Enforcing age restrictions online is extremely difficult
- Bans may push young people to less regulated platforms
- Social media also provides real social and creative benefits
- Legislation risks avoiding the deeper question of parental responsibility
Many have already advocated for these arguments, but the final point — the role of parents — is rarely discussed openly and it may be the most important part of the debate.
The Parenting Question We Don’t Want to Talk About
One of the striking features of the social media debate is that many parents support a ban for under-16s.
At first glance this makes sense. Parents worry about the effects of social media on mental health, sleep, and attention. If government legislation removed access entirely, it might appear to solve the problem.
But there is an uncomfortable question underneath this support: parents already have the power to limit social media use.
Today it is possible to restrict access in multiple ways, including built-in parental controls such as Apple Screen Time and Google Family Link or even more granular control with 3rd party apps like Custodio
In other words, the tools already exist.
What legislation offers is something different: removal of the need to enforce those boundaries ourselves.
For many parents, saying no to social media can feel socially difficult. Teenagers want to fit in with their friends. Phones and apps have become deeply embedded in teenage culture. Setting limits can lead to conflict at home.
A government ban solves that problem. The rule is no longer coming from the parent — it is coming from the state.
Outsourcing the Hard Decisions
Parenting has always involved making unpopular decisions on behalf of children.
Bedtimes, television limits, homework expectations, and curfews are all examples of boundaries that parents enforce even when children dislike them.
Social media is simply the modern version of that same challenge.
But in a culture where parents often feel pressure to be liked by their children, enforcing those boundaries can feel uncomfortable. It can be easier to hope that someone else — schools, platforms, or government — will solve the problem instead.
This raises a deeper question.
If we genuinely believe social media is harmful for children under 16, why do we need a law to stop them using it?
A Cultural Issue, Not Just a Technology Issue
Debates about social media often focus on:
- algorithms
- platform regulation
- online safety laws
In the UK this debate has been shaped by legislation such as the Online Safety Act.
But the conversation about parenting is often missing.
Technology has changed childhood, but it has also changed parenting. Many families now navigate a landscape where smartphones arrive earlier, peer pressure is constant, and digital platforms shape social life.
The result is a tension between protecting children and allowing them to participate in the social world their peers inhabit.
Legislation may address some of the technology issues, but it cannot solve the underlying cultural question: how much freedom children should have online — and who is responsible for setting those limits.
The Real Challenge
Protecting children online is an important and legitimate goal. Technology companies should absolutely be held accountable for the systems they design, and governments have a role in setting standards and safeguarding young people from genuine harm.
But not every difficult problem in society can be solved through legislation.
Parents already have the ability to decide when their children receive a smartphone, which apps they can use, and how much time they spend online. Those decisions have always been part of parenting.
A ban might make those choices easier. It might remove the arguments around the dinner table. But it would also allow us to avoid a harder conversation about how we guide children through a digital world that isn’t going away.
The real challenge is not keeping young people offline forever.
It is helping them learn how to live online safely, responsibly, and with resilience.