To Ban or not to Ban
(That is not the Question)
Across the world so called social media ‘bans’– laws that restrict teenagers, often under the age of 16, from accessing a range of social media sites– are on the rise.
Australia was the first country to introduce such a law, with others already angling to follow. However, the UK Government is holding off, weighing up its options, and pledging that through a ‘National Conversation’ they intend to investigate realistic (and enforceable) alternatives to a ban.
When it comes to this debate, support for ‘doing something’ is often mistaken for support for a blanket ban. So while headline support for a ban is high, this support proves fragile when the policy is tested against practical realities.
Recent polling by Public First has shown that there is a wider, more solid consensus for intervention over prohibition, and that there is an appetite among the public to reframe the debate away from ‘to ban or not to ban’ towards what actually protects children (and can be enforced). Our research also shows that:
A ban is popular in principle but weak in practice. Nearly two-thirds support a blanket ban on under-16s using social media, but 68% say it would not work, and 50% of parents would still allow access to social media even if a ban were in place.
Support is driven by concern about harms, not faith in a ban. The public’s top priorities for banning or restricting social media use are: reducing exposure to harmful content (39%), tackling bullying (37%), and protecting mental health (36%) - outcomes many do not believe a ban would reliably deliver.
When given workable alternatives, the ban consistently loses. Measures such as parental consent, child-friendly versions of apps, time limits, stronger parental controls and digital literacy education all outperform a ban when we asked the public to look at options side by side.
Initial support for a ban is high, across every demographic, region and political party
64% of UK adults surveyed supported banning access to social media for all children under 16, with only 16% opposed. Support for bans in specific circumstances, such as in schools, was even stronger: 79% support banning under 16s’ social media use while in school.
The main drivers of support for a social media ban were limiting the exposure of children to harmful and/or inappropriate content, the reduction of bullying and harassment of children online, and protecting children’s mental health and wellbeing.
Encouraging children to spend their time differently (e.g. socialising in ‘real-life’), reducing distractions, improving concentration at school, and promoting healthier social interactions between children were also cited as reasons to support a ban.
…but the public doesn’t think it will actually work.
68% of UK adults surveyed agreed that a ban would not work in practice as children would find a way around it, e.g. by moving onto other platforms or through use of a VPN. 45% thought that a ban would push children onto less regulated or more harmful platforms
Parents are also unlikely to help with enforcement of a ban. Even if a ban was in place, 50% of parents said that they would likely still let their child access social media.
When up against other options, the ban lost to all of them.
Increased regulation, parent-mediated and educational approaches were favoured over an outright ban, leaving the Government more room to manoeuvre following its consultation.
Such measures would not be starting from scratch. The UK already has a growing ecosystem of interventions in this space, including the Online Safety Act, school-based phone restrictions, and expanded parental-control tools offered by some platforms. Public opinion appears receptive to building on, rather than replacing, these foundations.
What next?
There is a growing political consensus that something more must be done, when it comes to social media regulation. However, what is yet to be settled is whether bans, age verification or duty-of-care models are the most effective response.
Our research shows that the British public would support– and in reality prefer– alternatives to a social media ban. Ultimately, though the idea polls well, it does not command confidence, and half of parents admit they would not help implement it.
This means there is the space– if politicians choose to take it– for an evidence-led discussion on what might actually work.
Written by Laurel Boxall